Take-Two’s War On Its Own Modding Community Continues, Harming Take-Two
from the c'mon-guys dept
Over the past couple of years, we’ve discussed several battles in the war on the modding community Take-Two and Rockstar Games launched. I’ve never seen a coherent explanation for why this war was needed at all, from either the publishers or speculators. Almost without warning, Take-Two went on a DMCA blitz on sites hosting these mods, many of which had been around for years. And these aren’t merely mods that allow people to cheat in online games. Many of them are mods for the single-player game, allowing players to do new and interesting things. You know, making Take-Two’s product more valuable, in other words.
But the war continues anyway. Luke Ross made virtual reality mods for several Take-Two games and woke up recently to find that Take-Two had filed copyright claims on his Patreon page.
Earlier today, Ross shared on his Patreon page and Twitter that he had just received a notice from Patreon informing him that Take-Two had filed a copyright claim against his page and its content. Ross creates virtual reality conversion mods for popular games such as Grand Theft Auto V, Red Dead Redemption II, and Mafia II: Definitive Edition. All of these games are published by companies that Take-Two Interactive owns.
The notice reportedly orders Ross to remove all “copyrighted content” from his page or risk suspension by Patreon. And here’s where things get messy. For starters, the notice doesn’t identify which specific content needs to be removed. That’s kind of important, because Ross insists that his mods don’t actually use any of Take-Two’s code, assets, or intellectual property.
“I never misrepresent the games as my creations, don’t reuse any of the original software, assets, or IP in general, and my mods always need the original games to work,” Ross told Kotaku. “So it’s only additional sales for the developer/publisher, and the possibility for the gamers to enjoy a kind of experience they could not have otherwise on a flatscreen.”
And this is what makes this all so damned frustrating. Once again, Ross’ work results in no negative outcome for Take-Two. In fact, his work — done for free, by the way — actually only makes the company’s games more attractive and valuable to more potential buyers, namely those that want to play the game in VR.
And for being a hobbyist who manages to provide this benefit to Take-Two, Ross gets a vague threat letter and no help in figuring out what Take-Two is actually seeking to have removed. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, folks.
Filed Under: content moderation, copyright, dmca, modding community, mods
Companies: patreon, rockstar games, take two
Comments on “Take-Two’s War On Its Own Modding Community Continues, Harming Take-Two”
Should file suit against Take-Two for fraud.
Re:
Should go after them for copyright violation. If he doesn’t use any of their artwork, code or other intellectual property, then they are asserting ownership of his copyrights, not their own.
Imagine if someone started issuing copyright strikes and DMCA takedowns to Take Two itself or domain registrar or an upstream backbone host, for IP they actually do own, causing them to suffer financial harm – possibly even for the release day of a new game. What would happen to someone who did that?
Take Two is liable in exactly the same way for doing this now.
Re: Re:
If he doesn’t use any of their artwork, code or other intellectual property, then they are asserting ownership of his copyrights, not their own.
Which is attempted copyright theft, not copyright violation.
Re: Re: Re:
Careful, a certain AC (You know, the illiterate one) is likely to lie that’s a “non sequitur” like they have before.
Re: Re: Re:2
Koby?
Re: Re: Re:2
Actually, I just saw that you said AC. Never mind.
Re: Re: Re:3
And I’ve just realised that my nym disappeared from the name field for the second time. (-_Q)
Re: Re: Re:3
If there’s any leftover confusion, they outed themselves by illiterately lying about me once again. My little dancing monkey just can’t help itself.
Re: Re: Re:4
Hrrmmm. Really? No evidence of illiteracy I see. Hrmmm.
Re: Re: Re:5
Read the comments, yoda and his AC puppeteer did not.
Re: Re: Re:6
If by “illiteracy” you mean accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation, then you don’t know the meaning of the word and are more guilty of illiteracy than AC is.
Re: Re: Re:7
Features of literacy:
Not related to literacy:
*fat-thumbing letters on a mpbile device keuboard (My sole and only provable flaw)
Re: Re: Re:8
Features of literacy:
understanding what words mean (Tooms1275 cannot show evidence that AC does not)
Understanding what one reads (Tooms1275 cannot show evidence that AC does not)
Being able to follow a written conversation (Tooms1275 cannot show evidence that AC does not)
Also related to literacy:
*”fat-thumbing” letters far apart from each other on a mobile device keyboard (Not Tooms1275’s only flaw)
You want to talk about “provable”? Links.
Re: Re: Re:6
Puppeteer I have not. Liar you are. Hrrrm, yes.
Re: Re: Re:7
Your timestamp says otherwise, raziel. You couldn’t hold in your compulsive lying for even two minutes after the previous one.
Re: Re: Re:8
Liar you are. Thing other than coincidence the time stamp proves not. Hrrrrm, yes.
Re: Re: Re:9
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. This is 3+ times now.
Re: Re: Re:10
I’ve checked the timestamps myself. You’re the one lying, not “Yoda” or anyone else you’re attacking.
Re: Re: Re:11
Did you already forget what happened the last time you lied about timestamps?
Re: Re: Re:2
I’ve just read the comment you’re referring to, and not only can that “illiterate” AC spell better than you, but the “lie they told” about the non-sequitur wasn’t a lie, so the only one lying here is you, on top of your clear misunderstanding of what “non-sequitur” means.
Re: Re: Re:3
Prove your claim, liar. For once in your existence.
Re: Re: Re:4
You’re the one slinging accusations, so the burden of evidence is on you.
Re: Re: Re:4
All these hours later and you still haven’t shown any evidence to support your accusations against AC, making you the liar and troll.
Re: Re: Re:5 Big space, not much in it though
How much rent is Toom paying to live in your head?
Re: Re: Re:6
My guess is right next to the huge lot he uses to delicately balance the twisted logic that making fun of copyright is what set the foundation for Prenda Law, and not the insane amount of leeway copyright law grants to abusers.
Re: Re: Re:7
I see. So if someone was to point out that high taxes charged by another country provided the impetus for the Boston Tea Party, you’d probably say they were arguing there should be no taxes at all.
Re: Re: Re:8
Simping and panicking about the feelings of copyright trolls will never be considered funny or insightful.
Re: Re: Re:9
You clearly don’t care about that, so why point it out?
Re: Re: Re:6
Actually, he’s essentially paying us† to live in his head. I personally find that troll’s antics amusing. I’d call him a trained monkey dancing for money, but that would be an insult to monkeys. Unlike the capuchin, though, he’s doing this out of what passes for free will for a wetware spambot; nobody’s coerced him into engaging in battles of wits while completely unarmed. But who am I to turn doen the offer of having a sandbag to practice on for free? A boxer needs to practice their jabs, after all.
† Any real person/non troll, especially those of us with the integrity to link our comments to a profile and always-used nym
Re: Re: Re:7
The thing I’ve noticed with you, James Burkhardt, DBA Phillip Cross, Hyman Rosen, Chosen and Koby is that having a regular nym doesn’t prove integrity. Quite the opposite in all your cases.
Re: Re: Re:8
I like how your strawman deliberately left out the part where I specified profile-linked. It really demonstrates your projected lack of integrity.
Re: Re: Re:9
I wasn’t aware that Hyman Rosen doesn’t have a profile anymore. When did he go back to commenting signed out?
Re: Re: Re:6
Why would you think I know how much he’s paying you for that?
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m not surprised you’re unfamiliar with the concept of having a good work ethic.
Re: Re: Re:6
I hope you didn’t pay too much for that projector. It’s not doing what you expected.
Re: Re: Re:5
So you admit you lied about reading the comment being referred to – the ine where you used “non sequitur” not in the way literate people use it – to point out “this ststement does not follow logic” – but instead used it to as part of your trademarked exclusive projection of “I lack the logical capaciy to follow Toom’s statement.”
Re: Re: Re:6
In what way is purchasing IP by registering a patent the same thing as stealing it? As I said, non sequitur. Evidence here. The ball’s now in your court.
Re: Re: Re:7
Your own link proves that only your bad-faith strawman ever made that that assertion.
Re: Re: Re:8
So not only are you illiterate when it comes to others’ comments, you’re even illiterate when it comes to your own. So when you accuse others of illiteracy, it’s just more evidence of projection.
Re: Re: Re:9
…Baselessly claims (once again as always with zero exceptions in evidence) copyright’s best and blightest†, deliberately and blatantly lying that anyone but their hallucination suggested that purchasing a patent is what constitutes theft, when what anyone literate and rational, unlike you, can see the clear fact it’s the abusive assertion of that patent via lawsuit to steal and disrupt the fruits of others’ labor (theft via IP) that that constitutes IP theft.
Anyone who’d ever read Techdirt, or evensimply the original article being discussed, would understand that part, and know the long history of the real people who read Techdirt correcting words to their literal meaning by calling theft by IP “IP theft” as a way to mock those of you who pretend that infringement is theft.
Someone literate (can understand what they read) who wasn’t being intentionally disingenuous wouldn’t be presenting the false narrative that the “and suing” part doesn’t exist in the comment you linked like you continue to do. But not a thoroughly corrupt maximalist troll who can never link any proof they have ever made an honest claim in their entire history here.
†not a typo
Re: Re: Re:2
Careful, only trolls make off-topic attacks like that.
Once again, Ross’ work results in no negative outcome for Take-Two. In fact, his work — done for free, by the way — actually only makes the company’s games more attractive and valuable to more potential buyers, namely those that want to play the game in VR.
I think you’re missing an obvious “negative outcome for Take-Two”, at least from their perspective. If at some point in the near or distant future they decide they want to release a VR version or add-on of their games to sell to their existing customers and someone online is giving it away for free (and possibly a better quality implementation) they see that as a negative outcome. Still not a copyright violation, just good old fashioned competition.
Re:
Take-Two didn’t have to further erode their relationship with modders to solve this “problem”. They could’ve bought the rights to that VR tech and released it themselves as a free add-on—or even hired the person who made it and let them help develop an official version. Coöperation goes further than destruction.
I have a question: will Take-Two and Rockstar end up like music publishers and not only poison their DLC with malware to prevent it being copied, but also send out DMCA notices over it?
If he’s sharing these mods via a Patreon account, his work is NOT “done for free, by the way”.
Re:
You… don’t know how Patreon works, do you? Those who pay get the mods and extra content on top. Those who don’t pay get just the mods. That means the mods are indeed given away, it’s the extra content people are paying for.
Re: Re:
I am a subscribed to a few Patreons. Just because the author chooses to release the results to everyone later doesn’t mean the content would have been made without the money from Patreon. You’re trying to argue an inverse variant of the MPAA’s piracy BS “Every pirated copy is a lost sale!”
Re: Re: Re:
Just because the author chooses to release the results to everyone later doesn’t mean the content would have been made without the money from Patreon.
Said all the creators on unemployment benefits and pensions to no one ever.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re trying to argue an inverse variant of the MPAA’s piracy BS “Every pirated copy is a lost sale!”
You’re arguing that I’m saying someone is making the copyrighted content of Take-Two Interactive freely available, but although the mods do rely on the games to work, the coding in them is entirely original and therefore not a copyright violation at all. Either learn some copyright law (for which going to law school is unnecessary) or wind your neck in.
Re:
It doesn’t matter where the information is shared because it still isn’t rockstar’s copyrighted ip.
Re: Re:
I think you mean “copyrighted content”. The copyright itself is the IP.
Wrong wrongs.
As long as there is zero commercial code involved (making this a patch, not a mod), it’s probably worth fighting.
I’ve seen both. Rebuilds and pure patches.
But here’s a beloved property that has current users going out of their way to keep the originals playable on new equipment.
The right route was taken with the GTA titles.
But
**They just got completely and utterly spanked in quality. **
In reality: it wasn’t even necessary. The majority hype wasn’t on improved graphics or HD or any other upgrades. The hype was playing GTA classics on modern equipment in working playable order. Without loaders and patches and VMs.
*They could have made bank with nothing more than a loader-and-shell rerelease! Ala Doom 95! *
Re:
As long as there is zero commercial code involved (making this a patch, not a mod)…
Incorrect, actually. A patch is a fix for broken or vulnerable coding, basically the electronic equivalent of a patch in a tent. Mod is short for ‘modification’, which should be self-explanatory. Both rely on the code of the original product to function, but neither needs to contain any of that code.
Re: Re:
That’s a very condensed and conservative viewpoint. One not shared by much of the programming community.
Patches can also be updates, extensions, addons, …anything added (patched) to the original. A patch specifically adds to the original where…
Mid modifies it.
A mod may or may not itself contain some or all of the original source.
A patch can be written entirely without need, access, or use of the source.
A mod requires at least access.
See dWad Companion.
(As a side note, I’ll grant there may be a shift in terms between my generation and newer ones.)