Syd Lexia wrote:

Hacker wrote: So let's use SydLexia.com as an example. A vast contribution to the articles on the homepage consist of copyrighted Nintendo trademarks. While Syd isn't making money off of any of these articles, he's still using their copyrighted works. Well under that section this site is little more than forums and a wiki without the articles, so it falls under ‘‘Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’’. So Nintendo could say they don't like this site and either demand that it all be taken down, or simply request the domain name Sydlexia.com to be blocked. They could also pursue a third route and sue Syd. This falls under fair use. I am pretty sure that there have been recent rulings that "Let's Play" videos do not fall under fair use though, as they show large amounts of game play, sometimes going as far as to show the entire game.

There hasn't been any legal decisions about video games that I know of (and of course I keep track). As far as I know, gameplay footage can't be covered by copyright, because it's the output of computer code. What's protected is the code itself. Usually, when a LP video gets flagged and bagged, it's because they used copyrighted music in it.

And what the hell, Hack? I told you this in the chat room last night. Flat out. But when Syd says it, all of a sudden "you were wrong"?

Quote:

However, isn't that what lawyers do? Some of them at least? They take the most extreme portion of a situation and apply it to their case to prove a point.

Lawyers present the most favorable interpretation of a law for their client. That doesn't mean that what they say will be accepted by the judge.