Blocking Review of Mods

[blahthis17]

I wanted to inform everyone that as of March 14 that in the USA it is illegal to stop a review of a product. There was that whole debate between Tarshana and MxR where she got MxR to take down his video review of her mod. She has now put her mod back up and has listed that no one is allowed to review her mod.

Now that is illegal in the USA here is the new law in effect on March 14, 2017: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/consumer-review-fairness-act-taking-effect"]http://www.natlawreview.com/article/consumer-review-fairness-act-taking-effect

[myuhinny]

Didn't even know who they were so I searched their name and see they only mods for skyrim shitty edition so I'll not have to worry about avoiding their mods since I don't play that version. I doubt they'll be modding for long with a attitude like that as it won't take long for ones like that to get their panties in a knot because someone doesn't like their mod.

[MrEsturk]

Hmmm... you sure that law applies to free products such as the mods on this site? I admit I'm not well versed on legal speak, but all the rambling about contracts and such makes me think that law only applies to paid goods/services. Stuff that the uninformed risk more than just some wasted free time.

 

I'm not trying to defend her, censorship, or suggesting she has a right to take down the video. Just don't see any legal recourse from that law suggesting it would be illegal for her to do so.

[27X]

All she has to do is claim defamation and this particular provision does nothing until a judge rules otherwise.

[Shadowhawk827]

1 hour ago, myuhinny said:

Didn't even know who they were so I searched their name and see they only mods for skyrim shitty edition so I'll not have to worry about avoiding their mods since I don't play that version. I doubt they'll be modding for long with a attitude like that as it won't take long for ones like that to get their panties in a knot because someone doesn't like their mod.

MxR does (did) a years long Skyrim mods review channel on YouTube.  Probably the most successful channel of it's type.  The irony here is that for the longest, he never even reviewed a mod unless he thought it was a cool addition to his and your load order.   The first negative review I heard of his was when Bethesda rolled out the Creation Club.  He did a video comparing the crap there to even better nearly identical free mods on the Nexus.

 

As for Tarshana, she's now a EA level pariah among the Skyrim players that are familiar with the situation.  It wasn't even a bad review by my understanding.  She just got pissy that MxR showed her mod in his video and accused him of stealing her assets.  Then she sued him. 

 

The law is a good thing period though.  This goes beyond the one example that impacts Skyrim players.  Businesses have made a habit the last few years of suing people who write negative reviews about them on Yelp or similar sites.  If it's a genuine false review, the person deserves to get sued.  If a business is just out to screw people though and turn out a bad product or service, people deserve to be ale to get their story out there.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Shadowhawk827 said:

As for Tarshana, she's now a EA level pariah among the Skyrim players that are familiar with the situation.  It wasn't even a bad review by my understanding.  She just got pissy that MxR showed her mod in his video and accused him of stealing her assets.  Then she sued him. 

 

Stealing her assets? She made it a free mod publicly available, he wasn't modifying and reuploading as his own or plain plagiarizing it...get a clue, bitch...I can't believe people like this exist.

 

When people have to pay for Internet the less we'll hear about idiots like this woman. Fucking slut, I hope she gets attacked equally or worse. What a cunt.

 

[myuhinny]

Sounds like she's another modder on drugs that needs to stop one or the other before they sink. After reading I'm glad I put her on the modders to ignore list but since she isn't modding the real skyrim I should be safe. People that are using her mods better watch out she might come out with a asinine chaos theory or something that you are also stealing their assets because you are using their mods. 

[TomatoEddie]

12 minutes ago, ThisTimeIBeAGoodGirlSir said:

Here

 

and quote

 

 

 

thanks for sharing, ThisTimeIBeAGoodGirlSir.

[deathparade]

Half the stuff on Tarshana's profile is from other people.

These people actually exist!

"You may not alter this mod to "improve it" in any way shape or form. "

I am pretty sure people can uploading it to the Nexus i am not sure.

This person talks like you cannot ever do anything with this on your own except install it.

[Shadowhawk827]

45 minutes ago, ThisTimeIBeAGoodGirlSir said:

Here

 

and quote

 

 

 

Thanks for pulling up the whole story.  I was going from partial memory.  I do remember now that MxR said something in his review about the market's assets being from other authors.  Following as long as I have, I doubt it was spiteful though.  Either way, I suspect that's what set Tarshana off and prompted her temper tantrum.

 

 

This law will be a good thing for sure.  Not just for gamers and modders, but people who write reviews anywhere (Yelp, Angie's List, etc...)

[Outlast1]

This law seems conflicting as too how it was written, consumers are allowed to review but not allowed if the owner of said product decides he/she dont like said review. This seems like infringement on the 1st amendment, If I am correct reviews of a product help other determine if it is the right product for them based on other peoples experience with the product. But most mod reviewers I have seen promote mods rather than smash mods for quality unless that mod is a direct fraud, or its literally stolen from other madders. plus I thought that reviewers using you-tube don't make money based on the product but by the views of the show, and that product receive basically free advertisement. Only if the that reviewer is not claiming the product as his/her own. so in light of that is this law directly protecting consumers who steal mods?

 

This may all be wrong but could someone clarify this as I might not understand this too well or taking this out of context. I hope I am and if not then something is really wrong with this law.

[27X]

There's noting wrong with it, it's simply not an absolute that allows "unadulterated review", secondly all someone has to do to put the ball in play is claim unfair use or defamation, and then you're off to court, where a judge will determine whether this law can be invoked or not, so if someone slags your review and claims to google you're a racist republican baby rapist, youtube will take it down period, cause that's how youtube rolls. 

 

So regardless of anything said above, you WILL be going to court, because you have to PROVE that this law applies, you don't just say 'na na this law, get out of jail free", there will be litigation.

 

As for captain retard's magic invocation of "you can't review this" that never had a legal standing to begin with, ever... but you'll still be going to court to prove that, just as everyone did with Alex Mauer's batshit claims about she didn't get paid in full so her contract with Imagos didn't actually exist, because she just literally said so. Still went to court though she didn't have a chance in hell of proving or backing up her claim.

[KoolHndLuke]

7 hours ago, Outlast1 said:

This law seems conflicting as too how it was written, consumers are allowed to review but not allowed if the owner of said product decides he/she dont like said review. This seems like infringement on the 1st amendment, If I am correct reviews of a product help other determine if it is the right product for them based on other peoples experience with the product. But most mod reviewers I have seen promote mods rather than smash mods for quality unless that mod is a direct fraud, or its literally stolen from other madders. plus I thought that reviewers using you-tube don't make money based on the product but by the views of the show, and that product receive basically free advertisement. Only if the that reviewer is not claiming the product as his/her own. so in light of that is this law directly protecting consumers who steal mods?

 

This may all be wrong but could someone clarify this as I might not understand this too well or taking this out of context. I hope I am and if not then something is really wrong with this law.

I am reading it as protecting individual rights to review a product despite any contract or otherwise created in an attempt to silence unwanted criticism. This upholds the ideals behind the 1st amendment and protects free speech- or right to call someone on their shitty mod.

[Veladarius]

I watch a lot of reviews of music videos online and generally the only time they can take down a video is if they play the complete video. If the audio is adjusted or the video is edited so  the entire thing is not shown then there is no issue (though some music labels go after everything). In the case of reviewing a mod she has no legal leg to stand on because of the Fair Use clause in the copyright laws and she can't claim theft as he has not distributed the mod or any of its assets (not that it sounds like much of it is hers in the first place). Hell, there are a few videos of complete play through's of older versions of Captured Dreams, doesn't bother me any.

 

I'm willing to bet that although she credited various mod authors for assets she actually never got permission from them to use any of their stuff and his review would likely make it known to the original modders.

[Outlast1]

8 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

I am reading it as protecting individual rights to review a product despite any contract or otherwise created in an attempt to silence unwanted criticism. This upholds the ideals behind the 1st amendment and protects free speech- or right to call someone on their shitty mod.

Oh that makes a lot more sense then how I was reading that law. Thanks for the clarification.

[Shadowhawk827]

I'll put it in simpler terms.  You can't block somebody from reviewing a game mod, restaurant, carpet cleaning service, etc...  HOWEVER, if your review is just slander that can't can't be supported by facts, they can sue you at that point.

 

This is getting off on a side tangent too,  but the whole first amendment thing is a pet peeve of mine.  The first amendment prevents government and only government from passing any law that restricts freedom of speech (as well as protecting other rights from similar government restriction).  What this law does is prevent private businesses from similarly blocking truthful free speech as part of an implied contract (via product / service use) or an actual contract.  That's a good thing IMO, as businesses have been abusing that ability for a while now.

 

 

EDIT:  Why is the distinction between government & private citizens important?   This pet peeve started with me being a moderator at another site so lets use that as an example.  It keeps things non-political also.  Government can't makes laws limiting your freedom of speech.  LoversLab, as a private site however, CAN decide what's acceptable content on it's own site.  Ashal decides there shall be no talk of mods that create Green Smurfs, that's the site's right as a private entity.  You want to talk about Green Smurfs mods, you have the freedom to go elsewhere and do so.

 

The boundary (for lack of a better term) in the United States is when free speech becomes slander (legally provable lies), or becomes actions that impact the rights or safety of others.  Anything more becomes a VERY slippery slope to tyranny.  That's why extremist groups on both ends of the political spectrum have the freedom say what they say.

 

Hopefully I kept that in the realm of civics without crossing the line to politics.  It's just always been a sore spot for me after dealing with people on that other site who thought they had the "right" to troll, be abusive and break all kinds of rules on a private site under the guise of the first amendment.

[blahthis17]

On 11/23/2017 at 2:16 AM, myuhinny said:

Didn't even know who they were so I searched their name and see they only mods for skyrim shitty edition so I'll not have to worry about avoiding their mods since I don't play that version. I doubt they'll be modding for long with a attitude like that as it won't take long for ones like that to get their panties in a knot because someone doesn't like their mod.

Nope,

Her mod on SSE https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/7615/?

 

Her Permissions:
+You may not use this as part of a promotional video or review video on Youtube. I do not want the Market to be spoiled for others. This is in shiny letters for all to see. 

+You may not make money from this mod, including but not limited to paid mod platforms, websites, youtube, Bethesda or affiliate websites, personal websites or other.
 

+You may not alter this mod to "improve it" in any way shape or form. IF a patch is needed, or something is broken just let me know. 

 

 

One of her credits on her description page: " CD Projekt Red - the original game masters of open and honest gaming software. I have never finished one Witcher game but I bought them all and gift them to friends because I believe in their company image."  Wow the irony here.
 

 

 

[gregathit]

55 minutes ago, blahthis17 said:

+You may not alter this mod to "improve it" in any way shape or form. IF a patch is needed, or something is broken just let me know. 

I get the biggest laugh from folks that stupidly put crap like this on their DL page.  While I would agree, you can't alter and release the mod, them trying to insist that folks can't alter the shit out of the mod for their personal game is ludicrous.  Laughably so.  I mod every single mod that I install.  Damn if I care what the mod author thinks about it.  How would they ever even know?

 

Obviously it is unethical to share such modifications of someone's mod with others without permission, so please don't misconstrue what I am saying here.

[myuhinny]

@blahthis17

 

Then I never have to worry about her then since I'll never play skyrim shitty edition and even if I did I'd go download something worth downloading and  leave her's alone. Also I don't always see color fonts since adblocker removes a lot of them on page load.

[Guest]

Wow. As a creator of original content in other areas can understand not wanting to spoil the experience someone's creation provides but doing something like this is a little extreme of a reaction? If people don't want to be spoiled for something they probably won't watch a review of it. That's up to the consumer's jurisdiction and not so much the creators. This is really...audacious and arrogant behavior. Christ. We don't need a law for this so much as we need to cultivate common decency and respect.

[myuhinny]

Well one thing will be for sure and that is she'll never get as much traffic as ones that get their stuff reviewed and showcased on youtube most authors are thrilled when their stuff is showcased or reviewed because that tells them that their shit is good and that they'll also get a ton of people coming to download their shit because they saw in the showcase or review.

[D_ManXX2]

There are so many mods out there and thanks to these review of mods i got to play many i never even heard of. MXR was one of the favorite youtube reviewers just like broduel is.

[Ernest Lemmingway]

15 hours ago, CausticWitch said:

Wow. As a creator of original content in other areas can understand not wanting to spoil the experience someone's creation provides but doing something like this is a little extreme of a reaction? If people don't want to be spoiled for something they probably won't watch a review of it. That's up to the consumer's jurisdiction and not so much the creators. This is really...audacious and arrogant behavior. Christ. We don't need a law for this so much as we need to cultivate common decency and respect.

Agreed 100%. But then remember this is the US of A. "Personal accountability is un-American!" 

 

A  to whomever can tell me where that line's from.