Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blizzard, Microsoft Codify Licenses for Machinima

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the gotta-love-those dept.

Movies 63

Wired has up a piece looking at two recent licenses released by Microsoft and Blizzard clarifying their policies towards player use of their games to create Machinima. It's an interesting discussion, because while Blizzard's license grants rights for the first time since World of Warcraft was released (essentially deliberately opening holes in their EULA), Microsoft's new policy takes rights away from enthusiastic Halo players at a time when everyone has just been given the capability to create their own in-game videos. Despite some trepidations, both licenses seem to be well received: "Even digital rights advocacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation signed off on the rules ... Fred von Lohmann, an EFF senior staff attorney who examined both sets of rules, said the main difference between them lies in a user's base set of rights ... 'It's great news that both of these companies are taking machinima seriously enough that they have been willing to come out and authorize some kinds of machinima ... That's a huge improvement over where we were before, which was (that) no one wanted to give machinima guys any kind of guidance at all.'"

cancel ×

63 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Only for Halo? (0, Offtopic)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 7 years ago | (#20827347)

Does this license cover me making a machinima movie of a perfect operating system experience using the Windows OS to render the visuals?

Re:Only for Halo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20827467)

Do you even know what machinima is? If so, what is your comment supposed to mean?

Re:Only for Halo? (5, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 7 years ago | (#20827541)

Machinima is the art of using someone else's rendering engine to portray a story different from the original intent.
For instance using the half-life engine to create a love story or something just as crap (Garrys mod is actually great for setting that kind of crap up).

That about covers my knowledge of machinima, whether my comment is crap or not is relative (though I think it was a bit rushed myself).

Re:Only for Halo? (1)

deftcoder (1090261) | about 7 years ago | (#20827801)

Most of the Garry's Mod stuff I see is just Alyx/G-Man/whoever being anally raped by <insert random object here>.

Re:Only for Halo? (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 7 years ago | (#20827891)

hmmm, most of the stuff I have seen comes from a better source than yours then.
Starting with the Concerned [hlcomic.com] comic I found a load of decent stuff around in the forums and links.

Re:Only for Halo? (2, Interesting)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | about 7 years ago | (#20828305)

Errrm, my 11 and 9 year olds spend a lot of time creating machinima using Garry's mod. Most of it is drivel (hey they're my kids but Ive got PERSPECTIVE), some of it is genuinely amusing and I am absolutely amazed by some of their results when they have gone to pains with the gmod poser.

Point being that I can well see machinima becoming a commercialised gaming sub-genre over the coming years (e.g. "The Movies" but with the sort of engine credibility/hype surrounding ID5/UT3/Crysis) since, at least in the case of my pair of high functioning aspergertons, there is a hell of a lot of entertainment value in what is rapidly becoming an "art".

Re:Only for Halo? (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | about 7 years ago | (#20830983)

Lit Fuse Films [litfusefilms.com] - suspiciously professional-looking films like Combine Nation [litfusefilms.com] created using Garry's Mod.

And some very impressive video editing afterwards!

Only for HTML? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20827903)

Well Slashdot's EULA allows you to use their engine to create crap.

Re:Only for Halo? (2, Informative)

Moe Napoli (826364) | about 7 years ago | (#20828017)

Machinima is the art of using someone else's rendering engine to portray a story different from the original intent. Machinima is the practice of live-action filmmaking within a 3D virtual space [machinima.org] . However, do to accessibility, it mostly defaults to existing game engines and their associated IP. This will change as more sandbox-theme virtual 3D space is developed.

Re:Only for Halo? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 7 years ago | (#20828285)

So, what is Machinima?

Machinima (muh-sheen-eh-mah) is filmmaking within a real-time, 3D virtual environment, often using 3D video-game technologies.

In an expanded definition, it is the convergence of filmmaking, animation and game development. Machinima is real-world filmmaking techniques applied within an interactive virtual space where characters and events can be either controlled by humans, scripts or artificial intelligence.

By combining the techniques of filmmaking, animation production and the technology of real-time 3D game engines, Machinima makes for a very cost- and time-efficient way to produce films, with a large amount of creative control.
So, one can never make a machinima version of Flatland? Or would it have to be "live-animated" using virtual 3D characters drawing 2D pictures on virtual panels, putting a terrible strain on the virtual animated character's wrists?

Re:Only for Halo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20835243)

Machinima (muh-sheen-eh-mah) is filmmaking within a real-time, 3D virtual environment, often using 3D video-game technologies.
so Animator vs. Animation [albinoblacksheep.com] isn't considered machinima?

Re:Only for Halo? (1)

mindwhip (894744) | about 7 years ago | (#20833329)

Machinima is the art of using someone else's rendering engine to portray a story different from the original intent.
You mean that Blizzard never intended to have a cow-woman singing about what the internet is really for?

Re:Only for Halo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20827531)

a perfect operating system experience using the Windows OS to render the visuals?


You want to use Windows rendered visuals to illustrate OSX? Not sure why or how it's related but you surely couldn't do a worse job than Microsoft themselves did with Vista.

Well received? (5, Interesting)

apdyck (1010443) | about 7 years ago | (#20827451)

Despite some trepidations, both licenses seem to be well received
How can one really say if a license is well received? Doesn't everybody just click "I accept"?

Re:Well received? (4, Interesting)

toleraen (831634) | about 7 years ago | (#20827841)

A while back the Everquest EULA was modified to read that SOE was able to dig through your processes to see if you're running any programs that were hooking into the client (back then it was mainly for ShowEQ). It was not well received (a whole lot of complaining on the forums, subscriptions canceled, etc), and that part of the license, as well as their process identifying program, got removed.

People can and have stood up to overly infringing EULAs, but it doesn't happen too often.

Re:Well received? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20832091)

So basically they stated in the EULA that they could do what WoW does with Warden and people bitched. But it's okay for Blizzard to do it? Spell it with me folks: hypocrisy !

Re:Well received? (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 7 years ago | (#20832183)

Sounds suspiciously like the Warden client that Blizzard use. Apparently that does basically the same thing, except it sifts through window titles etc. as well, but on the flip side only downloads hashes of the strings it's looking for, and doesn't send any data except a pass/fail through to Blizz.

People didn't receive Warden well either, there was a whole lot of complaining on the forums, many people were going to quit but then they realised they'd miss their raid on Thursday and STFU'd because they wanted their set pieces. These days we don't see half as many players using teleport/speed hacks, though, so I guess it worked.

Re:Well received? (1)

Splab (574204) | about 7 years ago | (#20832185)

Valve did the same back in the days with Counter-strike, I think they removed it because it turned out spying on the users wasn't legal.

Re:Well received? (1)

moogle001 (563970) | about 7 years ago | (#20827887)

If the EFF is onboard, that's a good sign, is it not?

Re:Well received? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20827919)

Have you ever had a hard time trying to explain something that is so simple to understand, a fucking retard should be able to grasp it?

I'm having that problem right now.

Re:Well received? (2, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | about 7 years ago | (#20828127)

Doesn't everybody just click "I accept"?

I bet the people who did, say, RvB didn't just click "I accept." I bet they read it. Heck, they might have had a lawyer read it for them.

Re:Well received? (3, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 7 years ago | (#20828415)

It does seem to make Rooster Teeth's sale of any new DVDs of Red vs. Blue in the future to be against the terms, unless they negotiate alternate terms. Everything they've made so far predates this license.

Re:Well received? (1)

ObiWanStevobi (1030352) | about 7 years ago | (#20828701)

I'm pretty sure Rooster Teeth have nothing to worry about. They have been officially supported by MS and Bungie for years. Not to mention they were even cast in Halo 3. I'm sure they had some sort of business agreement long before this EULA required them to, if it does at all.

Re:Well received? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 7 years ago | (#20829347)

Not to mention [Rooster Teeth] were even cast in Halo 3.
Hmm, someone should update the Halo 3 [imdb.com] page on the Internet Movie Database with the credit particulars.

Re:Well received? (1)

AndyCR (1091663) | about 7 years ago | (#20832993)

Which means that now, any competition to Rooster Teeth must go through Microsoft, a Rooster Teeth supporter, first... Don't you love how the current rules promote free-market competition?

ah, Prince of Persia death sequence FLVs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20827737)

if there was an internet back then, i wonder if Broderbund would have been pissed off at all the wonderful ways we found to splice screengrabs of that game into varied, complex, and ridiculous ways to kill the prince?

Art (1, Funny)

EMeta (860558) | about 7 years ago | (#20828215)

But is it Art?

Re:Art (1)

chris_eineke (634570) | about 7 years ago | (#20832231)

Who cares if it's art! Does it run Linux?!

Pffftt... (0)

ZDRuX (1010435) | about 7 years ago | (#20828339)

Do they really expect some 16 year old kid to go out and get a license before he makes some 5min movie with his buddies in WoW ?!... They've gotta be joking if they think anybody will actually respect their wishes. You've paid for the game, and you record yourself playing the game a certain way.. licenses? No thanks!

Re:Pffftt... (1)

JeremyBanks (1036532) | about 7 years ago | (#20828371)

I don't think this story means what you think it does.

Reading is hard. Jump to conclusions, instead! (5, Insightful)

Malkin (133793) | about 7 years ago | (#20829391)

You didn't actually read Blizzard's Fair Use Guide [worldofwarcraft.com] before posting that, did you?

No, they don't expect the 16-year-old kid to go out and get a license before he makes his movie. They only want you to get a "content use license" if your film ends up being used for a commercial purpose, or screened in public at a festival. That's not at all unreasonable, since you're making ample use of their artwork in your movie.

Re:Reading is hard. Jump to conclusions, instead! (1)

ZDRuX (1010435) | about 7 years ago | (#20829923)

I must admit I didn't read the full story but I wasn't that far from the truth. It seemed a bit strange to me to be writing up a license when there was no Machinima ever used in a commercial setting where people made money off of it, at least none that I'm aware of.

Pardon my jumping to conlusions.

It's okay. (1)

Malkin (133793) | about 7 years ago | (#20830523)

Actually, there's a lot of machinima used in commercial settings. GameStop is running a series of machinima commercials right now, for example. Somebody got paid for those. Microsoft is also doing a series of machinima ads, online. MTV runs machinima eye-catches, and has a machinima music video show. "Make Love Not Warcraft" is a perfect example of using WoW machinima for commercial use.

Re:Reading is hard. Jump to conclusions, instead! (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | about 7 years ago | (#20834319)

South Park won an emmy for their episode that was done 90% inside of WoW, if that didn't make them money I don't know what would.

Re:Reading is hard. Jump to conclusions, instead! (1)

fleck_99_99 (223900) | about 7 years ago | (#20835597)

I imagine Parker and Stone or their agents had negotiated machinima permission, as Blizzard actively collaborated [wikipedia.org] with South Park on the "Make Love, not Warcraft" episode.

Imagine a real hollywood set (4, Insightful)

freshmayka (1043432) | about 7 years ago | (#20828473)

Machinima is storytelling. Now what if you could not only break into, but copy and distribute all the props and actors from a Hollywood back lot?

So Steven Spielberg spends a couple dozen million dollars on models and props and sets and backdrops and... makes a movie and cashes in on it.

Bungie designs a three-dimensional virtual world with models and props and sets and backdrops and... turns it into a gameworld and cashes in on it.

If in EITHER of these cases, Random Joe comes in and uses any of these creative resources (the models, sets, props, actors) and makes an entertainment product and sells it... What do you call that?

If it WAS a studio back-lot, it's probably grand theft for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars in props.

In a digital world, you're just manipulating and redistributing a data-stream. Sounds fair enough right? Well so long as nobody turns a profit from it...

The artist could argue that all art steals from previous ideas and creations. However you can't actually make a replica of Michael Angelo's "David" and name it Joe Average's "Bob" and sell it or otherwise claim it as your creation... Make a video of the statue, or a photo, paint over it, add a soundtrack, and call it "Mixed-Media" and THEN you can put your name on it.

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (2, Interesting)

Hausenwulf (956554) | about 7 years ago | (#20828871)

"If in EITHER of these cases, Random Joe comes in and uses any of these creative resources (the models, sets, props, actors) and makes an entertainment product and sells it... What do you call that?" I think it's called "fair use."

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (1)

freshmayka (1043432) | about 7 years ago | (#20828915)

Exactly... you call it fair use...

Lawyers for Microsoft say it's infringement...

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (2, Informative)

fullmetal55 (698310) | about 7 years ago | (#20829151)

Using your logic, it should be illegal to make a replica of Michelangelo's david and sell it for profit? even scale replicas?
what about scale replicas of the statue of liberty? it should be illegal to copy Bartholdi's work on that too shouldn't it?

What about fanfiction? is that illegal too? Also regarding the movie props and stuff, if they just used them it wouldn't be considered theft, trespassing yes (considered to be a lot less of a serious crime than theft), but not theft if they were simply used in another movie. Using copywritten images is also different than physical theft, (more like digital trespassing). comparing the two shows an ignorance of law. props are property, images aren't. Images are copywritten works, not physical property. the statue of david is physical property. making a physical copy of it isn't removing that physical property it's a replica.

Also it's pointless to use the statue of david as an example in this case, as any copyright on the statue of David has obviously long since expired, and it's value isn't in the image, it's in the physical work itself. And numerous people have used the image without diminishing the original work (Simpsons even had an entire episode devoted to the statue of David). I suppose it does work for some arguements. Since, it shows that a work of art, can be replicated, used in other mediums, photographed, replicated, and shown off for free numerous times, and the value of the original work never decreases. in fact it increases with time.

And to be honest if somebody made a complete full scale, exact replica and named it "bob", It would be considered a knock-off, and be labeled a replica of David, and if he insisted on calling it "bob" he'd be laughed at. And again it wouldn't diminish the value of the original one bit. in fact the controversy in the media would most likely increase the value of the statue of David.

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (1)

sholden (12227) | about 7 years ago | (#20831061)

Using your logic, it should be illegal to make a replica of Michelangelo's david and sell it for profit? even scale replicas?
what about scale replicas of the statue of liberty? it should be illegal to copy Bartholdi's work on that too shouldn't it?


If the copyright on those artworks hadn't expired then doing that would be a violation of copyright and hence "illegal". But since they have you obviously can.

You can't legally photograph all the pages of a novel and distribute a PDF of it. You can't legally film a movie showing in the cinema with your hand held camera. You can't legally paint a copy of a photograph. If said book, movie and photograph are still copyrighted and you don't have permission from the copyright holders (or manage to squeeze into some form of fair use...)

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20831093)

God damn it, it is "copyrighted" not "copywritten"!

What caliber of bullet do I need to engrave that on to get it into people's heads? Lately it seems to be in one ear and out the opposite temple.

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 7 years ago | (#20832531)

Use a smaller caliber.

A well-aimed .22 should just barely penetrate the skull and let the message rattle around inside instead of opening a barn door in the opposite side. :)

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (2, Informative)

steelcobra (1042808) | about 7 years ago | (#20829311)

The question is also: Does the original studio benefit from the dirivative work? Rooster Teeth (obviously the biggest example) made a killing and a phenomenon with Red Vs Blue that Bungie (and Microsoft by extension) saw as essentially free advertising for the games, and even actively promoted. Which gave the group license to do alternate projects for other games as well as a means of advertising, much like how a select few webcomics creators are commisioned to do special mini-books for promotional purposes.

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (4, Insightful)

DavidTC (10147) | about 7 years ago | (#20830027)

Um, no, actually, if you snuck onto a movie lot and filmed a movie, you might be in trouble for trespassing, but it's no sort of copyright violation I can think of, and you could even sell said movie. It's not even theft to use props and whatnot, as long as you weren't actually attempting to make off with them, any more than it's theft to sit on a bench in someone's front yard. (And if it was theft, it still wouldn't be illegal to sell the movie.)

In fact, there are actually 'illegally filmed' movies out there, including some big ones, where they thought they had permission to film somewhere and didn't ask the right people. They sometimes get charged with various things, like obstructing traffic, but none of them are 'copyright violation', because you can't copyright reality and it is explicitly legal to take pictures of whatever the hell you want in public.

The only exception is sometimes you can't use photographs of people for profit without consent. Only people, not their stuff. And, of course, taking a photograph of a copyrighted image counts as copying it, so need to be careful there.

Your example is even stupider than normal examples comparing copyrights to property rights. You've managed to come up with something that isn't illegal at all.

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (1)

Altima(BoB) (602987) | about 7 years ago | (#20830737)

"And, of course, taking a photograph of a copyrighted image counts as copying it, so need to be careful there."

Machinema is 'filmed' in a world entirely made up of textures, polygons, environments, and (usually) sounds made by the developers of a game. All of these are works of art to some degree, created by others.

If Machinema people use sound effects from the game for ambiant sound or for the likes of explosions and gunfire, which they frequently do, how is that different from ripping off the sound track to another film and inderting it into your own film?

Rather than sneaking onto a movie set as your analogy, it should be, taking footage from existing films and cropping, zooming, or otherwise re-editing it to make your film, because everything in the game world is a creation of the game developers.

(Just for the record, I'm a big fan of Machinema, so I welcome its broad acceptance, as video games and their models get more advanced and articulate, we could see 3D animation approach something akin to puppetry rather than the horrible curve editing it is today... But still, false analogies are bad.)

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (1)

DavidTC (10147) | about 7 years ago | (#20831177)

Oh, I know. I'm sure it is some sort of copyright violation without a license.

I has just taking issue with that idiotic analogy.

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (1)

vertinox (846076) | about 7 years ago | (#20830207)

No, your example would be like if Apple sued anyone for using Final Cut Pro to make a movie. The engine itself is not copyright able material in itself as long as you don't use any copyrighted art that came with the engine (textures, models, elsewise) as the product goes.

Now if you took Master Chef and made a movie with him, Microsoft can sue for copyright violation. I'm sure Red Vs Blue had been either given the OK or talked with Microsoft when they started selling DVDs of their skits.

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20834247)

Actually I'd imagine Trademark infringement would be a lot easier to prove than copyright infringement. I have no doubt M$/Bungie has trademarks on the Master Chief 'look' which is the cornerstone of their whole game (and a pretty blatant ripoff of the Doom Space Marine Suit none-the-less... I mean c'mon just look at that helmet, and his coloring :P)

Captcha was income.... Yes Please! :)

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | about 7 years ago | (#20834339)

Ironicly if you replaced the content in WoW with your own IP, I'm pretty sure you'd be violating the EULA elsewhere. Never actually read it, but that just seems like a big hole for cheating that they'd want to cover.

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (1)

Rallion (711805) | about 7 years ago | (#20892561)

You would be correct.

Re:Imagine a real hollywood set (1)

the Jim Bloke (1110963) | about 7 years ago | (#20831721)

have you seen the number of crappy imitation "Davids" out there ? they get sold as garden ornaments FFS. There isnt any question of originality or artistic merit.. IANAL, or an artist , but I consider Machinima to be more of a 'performance' art, as opposed to a 'creative' art, which falls more towards the game design and the ingame assets - props etc. With Machinima, there is the artistic pretensions - or even ability in rare cases, of the performers, but the setting is usually still recognisable as the world of the game creators. This in no way detracts from the revenues of the Game owners. In fact it does an excelent job of advertising the game. We should have some kind of recourse against games where the advertising trailers and opening vids DONT resemble actual gameplay and ingame graphics.

Barrier to Entry (2, Insightful)

hidannik (1085061) | about 7 years ago | (#20830281)

While it's nice to know what's kosher and what isn't, the Microsoft license forbids two common practices - one that is common for writers just getting their feet wet, and another that keeps the costs low enough for hobbyists and amateurs to dabble.

The first practice I'm referring to is fan fiction; a writer makes "baby steps" by writing sequels or prequels or side-stories or alternate endings, etc. that use the existing fictional world as a base.

The second is the use of sound and music from the original work. The machinima author, to comply with this license, has to produce new sound effects for everything in the film, new ambient noise, and new music. And has to synchronize those sounds with the action while also adjusting sound placement in the environment, something that games do for you automatically, just as they do the animation of characters and 3D rendering and physics.

I'm not saying that Microsoft is wrong to put these restrictions in the default machinima license for its properties; for the sound case in particular there are license considerations that make it understandable. But it will have a chilling effect.

Consider all the machinima out there that would never have happened had this license been in place six years ago. There would have been no Red vs. Blue (violates both rules), no Fire Team Charlie (violates sound rule), and so on.

I like to make machinima "arrangements" of games with good stories; I am in the process of making one of Shadow of the Colossus. After that's finished, I'd wanted to make one of either BioShock or Halo. This license certainly kills that idea (violates sound rule). Or if I do make it, I'll be the only one that can watch it.

Not only that, this means all walkthrough and speedrun videos will have to lack game sound, and it also leads to the slightly ludicrous situation that Halo 3 players can record gameplay and share it, but cannot save it in video form for posterity.

Hans

Red vs Blue (2, Interesting)

Cryophallion (1129715) | about 7 years ago | (#20830383)

Well, it's a good thing Red vs Blue [roosterteeth.com] just ended, or else it would have to end now.

From TFA:

The creation of anything "pornographic or obscene ... or otherwise objectionable." The vagueness of this rule upset many creators.

I'm sure some parents would call the language used in RvB "obscene" (and if parents don't, I know a lawyer who will...)

The sale of any works that use Microsoft intellectual property. The company said it's OK to sell ads on sites that host machinima, but that's it.

And that is the death of RvB right there. In fact, I hope it isn't retroactive, or else they can't sell the dvds anymore. And then there will be the giddy microsoft junior lawyer trying for a promotion who gets a part of the t-shirt sales too because it was quotes used in a video using microsoft ip, so it is "fruit of the poisonous tree". (IANAL)

On the other hand, this may not apply to roosterteeth at all, as they were even invited to bungie to try out the new versions before they were released.

Of course they could be making roosterteeth anti-comptetive like they are, by not allowing anyone to do what they did, so they have the monopoly :^) (no I don't think they'd ever do that)

Re:Red vs Blue (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 7 years ago | (#20831273)

Of course they could be making roosterteeth anti-comptetive like they are, by not allowing anyone to do what they did, so they have the monopoly :^) (no I don't think they'd ever do that)
I think it was Disney that established that standing on the shoulders of giants is subject to a single-occupancy rule.

well lets just see here now... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 7 years ago | (#20831585)

Software purchased for the purpose of rendering 3d images,in realtime,with filmmaking capabilities,hmmm.
Software company included characters and add the ability to pipe output to a work by the purchaser.
Their contract means squat and the best reply they are to recieve from the bench is"attractive nuisance".
Machinima lives.
If you don't want your video game characters used in films,don't include them in the package.
Life's hard,don't make it harder on everyone by being corporate assholes.

To put this in perspective... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20833337)

...read these [machinimafordummies.com] blog [machinimafordummies.com] posts [machinimafordummies.com] , and maybe also look and listen to this here [theovercast.com] .

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20832087)

Here are my rules; I'll use the videos I record of the games I paid for in any way I want, and there's nothing you can ever do about it. Hard to enforce your EULA across national borders when you can't even figure out the identity of the "violators".

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20835259)

As a general rule, shitheads like you don't contribute anything of worth anyway. They probably aren't overly concerned about something that is only going to be seen by one person.

Re:No (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 7 years ago | (#20837999)

Here are my rules; I'll use the videos I record of the games I paid for in any way I want, and there's nothing you can ever do about it.

And here are my rules. Get out the house a bit more, socialise with some real people and get a girlfriend.

The only thing sadder than those people watching videos of someone else playing a game are those people making the damn things.

Re:No (1)

hidannik (1085061) | about 7 years ago | (#20839753)

Your crticism would apply equally well to any amateur/unpaid filmmaking project. You could say that the only thing sadder than watching a video of someone pretending to be a hero/villain/victim is the group of people doing the pretending.

Do you really want to call sad the makers of Hardware Wars, Recorded Live, Porklips Now, Troops, Duality, The Killer Bean 2: The Party, and 405: The Movie?

Hans

Re:No (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 7 years ago | (#20842495)

Do you really want to call sad the makers of Hardware Wars, Recorded Live, Porklips Now, Troops, Duality, The Killer Bean 2: The Party, and 405: The Movie?

The only one I know out of that list is "Troops" - and, no, I wouldn't call the makers of "Troops" sad, what they created is original and funny. But that's a whole lot different to recording somebody playing a computer game...

Machinima, and what it means. (1)

Malkin (133793) | about 7 years ago | (#20848329)

While some very early machinima was comprised largely of recordings of Quake gameplay, that certainly doesn't characterize most offerings, today. Most of what you'll find out there now is either music videos or narrative films. Heck, machinima has even appeared at Sundance. I recommend that you take a look around at what's available, before you knock the film-makers. "Red vs. Blue" is a good newbie's introduction to machinima, but if you want a taste of what else is out there, I recommend heading over to The Machiniplex [machiniplex.com] for some flicks. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Just an observation (1)

Ren.Tamek (898017) | about 7 years ago | (#20833493)

'It's great news that both of these companies are taking machinima seriously enough that they have been willing to come out and authorize some kinds of machinima ... That's a huge improvement over where we were before, which was (that) no one wanted to give machinima guys any kind of guidance at all.'

Just FYI, Microsoft have taken a very personal interest in Red Vs. Blue, even going so far as to have exclusive Xbox live releases. Blizzard have been making their own machinima (L70ETC - I am murloc), and rumour has it they contribute to warcraftmovies.com . This all happened at a corporate level way before their lawyers laid pen to paper.

It's quite interesting to see how each company handled the situation - Blizzard financed their own works and bought the community a home. Microsoft financed buying the best of the community. Typical of each company, i'd say.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?