ID:97039
 
An excerpt from copyright.gov;

"§ 501. Infringement of copyright3
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term “anyone” includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright.

(c) For any secondary transmission by a cable system that embodies a performance or a display of a work which is actionable as an act of infringement under subsection (c) of section 111, a television broadcast station holding a copyright or other license to transmit or perform the same version of that work shall, for purposes of subsection (b) of this section, be treated as a legal or beneficial owner if such secondary transmission occurs within the local service area of that television station.

(d) For any secondary transmission by a cable system that is actionable as an act of infringement pursuant to section 111(c)(3), the following shall also have standing to sue: (i) the primary transmitter whose transmission has been altered by the cable system; and (ii) any broadcast station within whose local service area the secondary transmission occurs.

(e) With respect to any secondary transmission that is made by a satellite carrier of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission and is actionable as an act of infringement under section 119(a)(5), a network station holding a copyright or other license to transmit or perform the same version of that work shall, for purposes of subsection (b) of this section, be treated as a legal or beneficial owner if such secondary transmission occurs within the local service area of that station.

(f)(1) With respect to any secondary transmission that is made by a satellite carrier of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission and is actionable as an act of infringement under section 122, a television broadcast station holding a copyright or other license to transmit or perform the same version of that work shall, for purposes of subsection (b) of this section, be treated as a legal or beneficial owner if such secondary transmission occurs within the local market of that station.

(2) A television broadcast station may file a civil action against any satellite carrier that has refused to carry television broadcast signals, as required under section 122(a)(2), to enforce that television broadcast station’s rights under section 338(a) of the Communications Act of 1934." (Credits owed too: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501)
Basically, fair use only protects you if the author wishes to allow you to change it. And if not, you need to change a certain percentage of the project in order for it to count as 'fair use'.
So if any Anime/Manga company asked BYOND to remove your game over a lawsuit, they would win.
Ernesto5432 wrote:
So if any Anime/Manga company asked BYOND to remove your game over a lawsuit, they would win.

Usually I meant, if your game wasnt stealing trademarks from them......(Naruto = a trademark.)
take that mastrdn
Please, Go to hell.
Now, as I had said before: GOA -is- used as a way of competition with Naruto(c) due to it taking away potential buyers from them. {That means that Naruto loses money from this game}
lol you think naruto is suffering because of GOA?

GOA only gets like 100 something people. Compare that to the Naruto fans that don't use BYOND.

If Naruto was truly suffering, something would've been done about it. But obviously there isn't. Naruto isn't going out of business because of a 2D BYOND game.
Are we suppose to be able to read this blog?
Change your goddamn font.
EmpirezTeam wrote:
lol you think naruto is suffering because of GOA?

GOA only gets like 100 something people. Compare that to the Naruto fans that don't use BYOND.

If Naruto was truly suffering, something would've been done about it. But obviously there isn't. Naruto isn't going out of business because of a 2D BYOND game.

I never said that, I simply implied thats what they would say, since 100 people = 100 x 21.96$ of video games = 2,196$ per day.
Ernesto5432 wrote:
EmpirezTeam wrote:
lol you think naruto is suffering because of GOA?

GOA only gets like 100 something people. Compare that to the Naruto fans that don't use BYOND.

If Naruto was truly suffering, something would've been done about it. But obviously there isn't. Naruto isn't going out of business because of a 2D BYOND game.

I never said that, I simply implied thats what they would say, since 100 people = 100 x 21.96$ of video games = 2,196$ per day.

Oh, and thats if its a used game.
Shinkaru wrote:
Change your goddamn font.

Will do.
I never said that, I simply implied thats what they would say, since 100 people = 100 x 21.96$ of video games = 2,196$ per day.

Not necessarily. Many people on BYOND own a game system. BYOND doesn't take the place of a game system for a lot of people on BYOND if any.
EmpirezTeam wrote:
I never said that, I simply implied thats what they would say, since 100 people = 100 x 21.96$ of video games = 2,196$ per day.

Not necessarily. Many people on BYOND own a game system. BYOND doesn't take the place of a game system for a lot of people on BYOND.

In the eyes of a corporation owned by greedy executives, it is a threat to their existence.(Especially since you pay for memberships that give benefits to games, some that are copyright infringement[Not saying Im against fan games, just against Masterdans reaction.])
And also, a rip doesnt include NBOLTS, NWOTS, or Zeta. As they were publically released at certain points and removed at other times. (->Masterdan<-)
Ernesto5432 wrote:
EmpirezTeam wrote:
lol you think naruto is suffering because of GOA?

GOA only gets like 100 something people. Compare that to the Naruto fans that don't use BYOND.

If Naruto was truly suffering, something would've been done about it. But obviously there isn't. Naruto isn't going out of business because of a 2D BYOND game.

I never said that, I simply implied thats what they would say, since 100 people = 100 x 21.96$ of video games = 2,196$ per day.

Actually, Who's to say these people don't play the video games and GOA.

FUNimation's Dragon Ball Z fansite copyright guidelines are a fantastic thing to analyze, friend.
18 comments :p
To an incredibly stupid blog post.