27 replies to this topic

[Defender0]

Here's what I don't get. If we get permission from Metalica to use their music in our mod...It doesn't suddenly become Microsoft's music. Waseem is giving us permission to use music he's producing.

I agree, this does sound odd. Wouldnt Waseem's music be considered third party assets, or something along the line of that?

[Unikraken]

It should. He's making the music and being graceful enough to let us use it for free.

[Unikraken]

Also, he's based in the UK, their copyright laws may be different.

[Emberblaque]

Here's what I don't get. If we get permission from Metalica to use their music in our mod...It doesn't suddenly become Microsoft's music. Waseem is giving us permission to use music he's producing.

Faulty premise unfortunately; if Metallica wanted to allow us to do that then they would have to agree to the terms of the license. Basically Microsoft says if you want to mix things with their IP, then you relinquish your rights to it. Also like I said, you don't explicitly transfer ownership, you just relinquish all rights that ownership entails.

[Calm_Craftman]

Why cant MS just go sue people that actually damage their well being instead of being dicks?

[Emberblaque]

Why cant MS just go sue people that actually damage their well being instead of being dicks?

By law, owners of intellectual property that fail to defend infringements upon it lose ownership of it.

[DGaius]

copyright laws

This was a thought that also crossed my mind. As far as I can remember, it's a simple principle (in the EU or NL): The creator of an artistic work is also the owner. Which means at third party is not allowed to copy, sell or claim this work to be his/hers/its. When artists sign a label contract, they usually sign a contract to sell their music to the label for a certain prize (usually an x amount per sold copy). The ownership rights of the music is than transferred to that label. Which brings me to Embers quote:

Faulty premise unfortunately; if Metallica wanted to allow us to do that then they would have to agree to the terms of the license. Basically Microsoft says if you want to mix things with their IP, then you relinquish your rights to it. Also like I said, you don't explicitly transfer ownership, you just relinquish all rights that ownership entails.

If I am right the terms of license basically have the same effect as signing a label contract, with the exception of actually transferring ownership. You just agree not to complain when MS uses your assets and won't pay you or give you credit.

I am not sure how the UK law works when it comes to contracts and agreements, but since they're in the EU I think it's safe to assume that their laws are similar to NL laws. In NL, whenever you agree to sign a contract, everything you agree to in that contract is legal (if it is not alien to international, European and other national laws).

[Emberblaque]

This was a thought that also crossed my mind. As far as I can remember, it's a simple principle (in the EU or NL): The creator of an artistic work is also the owner. Which means you are not allowed to copy, sell or claim this work to be yours. When artists sign a label contract, they usually sign a contract to sell their music to the label for a certain prize (usually an x amount per sold copy). The ownership rights of the music is than transferred to that label. Which brings me to Embers quote:



If I am right the terms of license basically have the same effect as signing a label contract, with the exception of actually transferring ownership. You just agree not to complain when MS uses your assets and won't pay you or give you credit.

You agree to, or you give up your right to, whichever you prefer to say, yes. Except instead of a signature or something, the very act of distributing the Item constitutes agreement.