Poll of the Day > wow you aren't allowed to talk about a game before the game releases apparently

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/0/8/AAeEKDAAEcAs.png

lmfao what a stupid statement to make

appeal? seems like BS.

age of wonders 4 comes out tomorrow, I better not discuss it. (looks great).

do you have a press copy or something and are violating an embargo? that's the only thing I can think of.

no

zelda totk leaked is all

ConfusedTorchic posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/0/8/AAeEKDAAEcAs.png

lmfao what a stupid statement to make

Careful, they'll send the Pinkertons after you

https://gizmodo.com/magic-the-gathering-leaks-wizards-wotc-pinkertons-1850374546

Hypothetically what if Link ate the Raccoon Leaf

Lokarin posted...

Careful, they'll send the Pinkertons after you

https://gizmodo.com/magic-the-gathering-leaks-wizards-wotc-pinkertons-1850374546

tbh nintendo would be more likely to hire hitmen

I remember before Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince released, it was bannable to utter that famous 3 word phrase.

...well yes that one is obviously spoilers and would still get you modded even today

Metalsonic66 posted...

Hypothetically what if Link ate the Raccoon Leaf

I was listening to a podcast of a TTRPG And Snake got a Tanooki tail in it He ran very fast and then jumped They were all video game characters who got video game items. Master Chief got the Master Sword, and Alice from the Madness Returns got the Time Dagger. Female Commander Shepard got an Orb from Dracula or Alucard that have Bayonetta in it. It was a fun ride

Honestly, given that Nintendo pressured Gamestop into firing a dude for "leaking" evidence that there would be a TotK-themed Switch and is currently trying to subpoena Discord for the identities of those involved in leaking the artbook, GameFAQs is probably protecting you more than anything (not to mention not wanting to deal with the legal hassle). Discussing a game that you are playing despite not being able to legally own it definitely falls into the Illegal Activities category, though, so this shouldn't come as a surprise.

adjl posted...

Honestly, given that Nintendo pressured Gamestop into firing a dude for "leaking" evidence that there would be a TotK-themed Switch and is currently trying to subpoena Discord for the identities of those involved in leaking the artbook, GameFAQs is probably protecting you more than anything (not to mention not wanting to deal with the legal hassle). Discussing a game that you are playing despite not being able to legally own it definitely falls into the Illegal Activities category, though, so this shouldn't come as a surprise.

Starfield should be a decent game.

adjl posted...

Discussing a game that you are playing despite not being able to legally own it definitely falls into the Illegal Activities category,

Street dates are legally enforceable now?

I mean for high profile releases like this, GameFAQs is more willing to enforce this rule. I got suspended for posting fake Harry Potter spoilers when The Deathly Hallows was releasing way back in the day. Not even real spoilers, just bullshit I made up for shits and giggles. And considering how TotK is the biggest Nintendo release literally ever, and everyone and their mothers wants to play it, I see why they're enforcing this.

papercup posted...

And considering how TotK is the biggest Nintendo release literally ever, and everyone and their mothers wants to play it, I see why they're enforcing this.

That made me laugh more than it probably should have.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

Street dates are legally enforceable now?

Yea, that is basic copyright law.

If anything, it is a contract between a distributor and a retailer.

Receiving or buying early as a consumer is just a bit of luck and I cannot see why a country's law would punish you for that.

So hype is against the rules now. Wow

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

If anything, it is a contract between a distributor and a retailer.

Receiving or buying early as a consumer is just a bit of luck and I cannot see why a country's law would punish you for that.

That is not how copyright works at all. The owner of the copyright has the sole ability to decide how, when, and if someone has the right to use their product. If the owner of the copyright doesn't want you distributing a game until a certain date, and you do it anyway, that is a breach of the copyright.

Same goes for the consumer, but it rarely is worth the legal trouble to go after them unless in extreme circumstances.

TomNook posted...

I remember before Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince released, it was bannable to utter that famous 3 word phrase.

Gods, I remember once joking at around that time (about two months after release even) that Dumbledore dyes a scarf bright green after Snape gives it to him, and in the contest against that moderation the responding moderator was like "It doesn't matter. You ruined the end of this book I haven't read yet HOW COULD YOU?!" And it was like, wow, the mods are screaming bloody murder over fake spoilers. That's a damned shame.

Dikitain posted...

Same goes for the consumer, but it rarely is worth the legal trouble to go after them unless in extreme circumstances.

I can see the case in where something is wrongly acquired, but if the product is sent out early by the distributor and the retailer, how is the consumer at fault for receiving it (too) early?

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

I can see the case in where something is wrongly acquired, but if the product is sent out early by the distributor and the retailer, how is the consumer at fault for receiving it (too) early?

Because

The owner of the copyright has the sole ability to decide how, when, and if someone has the right to use their product.

But given the difficulty of tracking down the number of consumers who violated the copyright, and levying what would likely be minor charges against them, it almost never happens.

Entity13 posted...

Gods, I remember once joking at around that time (about two months after release even) that Dumbledore dyes a scarf bright green after Snape gives it to him, and in the contest against that moderation the responding moderator was like "It doesn't matter. You ruined the end of this book I haven't read yet HOW COULD YOU?!" And it was like, wow, the mods are screaming bloody murder over fake spoilers. That's a damned shame.

Yeah, I got moderated for saying in the movie titanic the ship sinks

SinisterSlay posted...

Yeah, I got moderated for saying in the movie titanic the ship sinks

Some things ALMOST make you wonder how deep the moderator iceberg goes.

I almost want to make an argument but dammit that's too clever of a pun for me to want to

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

Street dates are legally enforceable now?

Obtaining a legitimate copy of a game before its street date is not illegal (though it may constitute a breach of contract for the distributor). Obtaining a copy of a leaked ROM, however, is, for the same reason that obtaining a copy of the ROM post-launch would also be illegal. Given that TotK's ROM has been leaked, it is considerably more likely that anyone discussing playing it at this point is playing the ROM than that they happened to find a store that broke street date for them, so it's easier to issue a blanket moratorium on discussing playing the game pre-launch than to try and figure out which posts are and are not discussing illegal activities (especially with Nintendo on the warpath when it comes to punishing TotK-related leaks).

Revelation34 posted...

Starfield should be a decent game.

Why do you think that's analogous to anything I said?

Dikitain posted...

But given the difficulty of tracking down the number of consumers who violated the copyright, and levying what would likely be minor charges against them, it almost never happens.

The distributor/retailer breaks streetdate and now somehow the consumer is on the hook for a "crime" they did not actually commit themselves?

adjl posted...

Obtaining a copy of a leaked ROM, however, is, for the same reason that obtaining a copy of the ROM post-launch would also be illegal.

Not quite, fully depends on the country.

Homecopies are fully legal here and their origin might be a grey area, but is in no way actively enforced.

adjl posted...

Honestly, given that Nintendo pressured Gamestop into firing a dude for "leaking" evidence that there would be a TotK-themed Switch and is currently trying to subpoena Discord for the identities of those involved in leaking the artbook, GameFAQs is probably protecting you more than anything (not to mention not wanting to deal with the legal hassle). Discussing a game that you are playing despite not being able to legally own it definitely falls into the Illegal Activities category, though, so this shouldn't come as a surprise.

you can neither confirm or deny that i don't actually own it.

in fact, everything i did post about it image wise you can ot tell, either, since it's on an actual switch that you can even see is connected online. something that wouldnt' happen if someone was using an emulator, obv.

however, it's still not illegal to talk about playing a game before it releases either, nor is it actually against the rules. illegal activities or otherwise, considering the only thing in the tos is about telling people how to illegally obtain the thing being talked about. i didn't do that because that's very obviously against the rules, and impossible for me to tell anyone anyways.

but i don't care about that, i care about that ridiculous statement from the mod lol, it's funny

ConfusedTorchic posted...

you can neither confirm or deny that i don't actually own it.

adjl posted...

Given that TotK's ROM has been leaked, it is considerably more likely that anyone discussing playing it at this point is playing the ROM than that they happened to find a store that broke street date for them, so it's easier to issue a blanket moratorium on discussing playing the game pre-launch than to try and figure out which posts are and are not discussing illegal activities (especially with Nintendo on the warpath when it comes to punishing TotK-related leaks).

Can't definitively confirm anything, but you can assume the more likely explanation and act accordingly. Absolute worst case scenario, you have to wait another week and a half to talk about your legitimate experiences. Weighed against the possibility of Nintendo coming after them for facilitating discussion of a leaked copy, that's not a hard choice.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

however, it's still not illegal to talk about playing a game before it releases either, nor is it actually against the rules.

Discussing ROMs is textbook Illegal Activities, per the ToU. Always has been, always will be. The discussion itself may not be illegal, but that's the basis for modding it.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

but i don't care about that, i care about that ridiculous statement from the mod lol, it's funny

It's an oversimplified way of saying that you shouldn't be discussing games you most likely don't legally own as though you own them. Obviously you won't be modded for discussing a trailer or speculating about the game; you know exactly what they're actually talking about.

adjl posted...

Why do you think that's analogous to anything I said?

Because it's apparently illegal to talk about unreleased games.

Revelation34 posted...

Because it's apparently illegal to talk about unreleased games.

It's illegal to talk about acquiring game ROMs.

Zelda has been doing squats

adjl posted...

Discussing ROMs is textbook Illegal Activities, per the ToU. Always has been, always will be. The discussion itself may not be illegal, but that's the basis for modding it.

there wasn't one single mention in that topic about how the game was being played, not one. punishing someone for an implication that isn't even mentioned is dumb and you know it

adjl posted...

It's an oversimplified way of saying that you shouldn't be discussing games you most likely don't legally own as though you own them. Obviously you won't be modded for discussing a trailer or speculating about the game; you know exactly what they're actually talking about.

no, it's not.

it's a very definitive statement that was said with no thought behind it, and it should rightly be made fun of

i never even disputed the moderation, it's worth it to just make fun of it. like when i got modded for explaining to people how to use the game saves that were uploaded to and downloaded from this very website

making fun of moderations that are stupid is arguably the best way to get change around here, because it hasn't been moddable to explain those saves for years now.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

there wasn't one single mention in that topic about how the game was being played, not one. punishing someone for an implication that isn't even mentioned is dumb and you know it

"Punishing," in this case, meaning "deleting your topic and telling you not to have this discussion for another week and a half." Not exactly a violation of the Geneva convention. As I said, absolute worst case scenario, that minor inconvenience isn't actually warranted, but it covers them from having to worry about Nintendo getting uppity (which there's ample precedent for because they're really butthurt about anything to do with leaking TotK). That's a pretty simple cost-benefit analysis to perform, and the conclusion they arrived at is the obvious best course of action.

Revelation34 posted...

Because it's apparently illegal to talk about unreleased games.

Please quote the part of my post where I said that.

adjl posted...

Please quote the part of my post where I said that.

you don't have to explicitly say things now since you are arguing that that gamefaqs mod didn't mean what he explicitly said

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

The distributor/retailer breaks streetdate and now somehow the consumer is on the hook for a "crime" they did not actually commit themselves?

The crime is playing the game before it is supposed to be released.

Dikitain posted...

The crime is playing the game before it is supposed to be released.

which isn't a crime anywhere in the world, incidentally

ConfusedTorchic posted...

which isn't a crime anywhere in the world, incidentally

It is if the copyright owner doesn't want you playing it.

uh, no

do you have a particular law you'd like to reference, perhaps?

Dikitain posted...

It is if the copyright owner doesn't want you playing it.

Copyright is about corporate distribution and making profit of something.

Dikitain posted...

The crime is playing the game before it is supposed to be released.

That doesnt sound right

ConfusedTorchic posted...

uh, no

do you have a particular law you'd like to reference, perhaps?

https://tinyurl.com/mu6erntt

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

ConfusedTorchic posted...

you don't have to explicitly say things now since you are arguing that that gamefaqs mod didn't mean what he explicitly said

I'm saying that the way he said it oversimplifies the actual issue he's trying to express (which is, specifically, "don't make topics like this about games that aren't out yet"). It's a bit of a silly way to say that, certainly, but the intent is obvious to anyone with a modicum of interpretive ability and the only error is speaking so generally. Nothing I said, however, could possibly be construed as trying to express "it's illegal to talk about games before they come out." If it can, then I've erred in my word choice and I'd appreciate having my error pointed out to me so I can correct it.

@Dikitain

I dont see where it says you cant play it early, though Its mainly talking about displaying it publicly in the part you quoted. But not specifically playing it privately

Realistically, if you play it privately and don't tell anyone about it, it doesn't really matter if it's legal or not. Nobody's ever going to know.

adjl posted...

Realistically, if you play it privately and don't tell anyone about it, it doesn't really matter if it's legal or not. Nobody's ever going to know.

What about playing it privately, but telling others youre playing it?

Dikitain posted...

https://tinyurl.com/mu6erntt

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

that ain't it chief

number 5 especially

that just means that they can play something they own publicly if they were to so choose

LinkPizza posted...

What about playing it privately, but telling others youre playing it?

Depends what you tell them. If you recount any part of the story (beyond what's been shown in trailers and other previews), that could be construed as publicly displaying the game's narrative and fall under copyright infringement. Just talking about the gameplay, maybe not.

In practice, of course, unless you're posting it in a public space or the person you're telling it to is secretly one of Nintendo's lawyers, it's astronomically unlikely that you'll face any consequences for going that. By and large, though, Nintendo's approach to their games is to control as much of what the public gets to know and see as possible, seemingly under the belief that letting any of it be revealed out of turn could hurt sales. With TotK in particular, they've been extremely uppity about any pre-release leaks, and I expect they'll ramp up their rather draconian attitude toward streaming and other video content post-release. Maybe there's some giant spoiler they're trying to keep under wraps, maybe there's something about the game that they're worried will turn people off of buying it if it gets out, or maybe they're just being control freaks for no reason, but either way, that's the reality of the situation.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

number 5 especially

that just means that they can play something they own publicly if they were to so choose

It means they have the *exclusive* right. The word's right there. Nobody else has that right, unless it's granted to them by the owner.