Ok, you said licensed music should be removed for games that continue to be sold and then later said music should not be removed even if they choose to make updates:
this clause only applies to games that continue to be sold
even if they choose to make updates to the game available, music removal should not be mandatory
You then go back on the second comment:
Whether the game is updated or supported beyond the music expiry license should not be part of the license agreement, and should be only based on whether it continues to be sold or not
Maybe I’m getting confused on sold vs updated as in either case that’s a product being maintained.
And I think you can already license music indefinitely, but you have to pay the copyright owner a lot more money.
But to say expiry should not be part of a licensing agreement is a wild take.
A game can be updated after a music license expires AND after the game is no longer being sold. The update should not be forced to include music removal if the update happens after the expiry date of the music license, but only if the game is no longer for sale.
In other words, the publisher can push an update to people who already bought the game with no mandatory music removal. They just cannot continue to sell the game after the music license expires if they do not renew the license. License renewal should be forced to be at the same rate as originally set, and these licenses should be regulated to ensure fairness. Because it is immensely common for a music license to suddenly increased on license renewal for no apparent reason other than greed.
Considering how literally evil record label companies are, second only to Disney, in consideration of ruining copyright law, I would even say music piracy is practically a moral obligation at this point. The artists and song writers know how beneficial music piracy is to gaining a larger paying audience, but record label companies cannot help themselves bending over thousands to pick up tenths.
AFAIK, no, you cannot get an indefinite music license for synchronization. Game licenses for music are stupidly overcomplicated, but basically the terms usually amount to either a time expiry in years, or a units sold expiry. I have never heard of or seen a music license that is for more than 1 million units or is longer than 10 years, unless the record label company directly made or funded the game themselves maybe. And as video games continue to be morbidly profitable, that number will only go down, forcing more renewals.
“Oh, your game is popular and our song is in it and about to expire? Well now it costs you double and only lasts for 1 year this time. What are you going to do? Remove your song and deal with the backlash? You cant pin it on us, because we dont care and the players will say its a cop out. See you next year when we triple the license cost.”
A game can be updated after a music license expires AND after the game is no longer being sold. The update should not be forced to include music removal if the update happens after the expiry date of the music license, but only if the game is no longer for sale.
Ok, so this is literally just your own wishful thinking.
So, based on what you are wanting, the anti-SKG lawyers have a REALLY good point:
A game goes offline officially and private servers or something fan-made pops up. The devs STILL have to pay for the music licensing for all time now. Thankfully, that’s not how any of this works or will work. That’s crazy stupid.
What are you talking about? Is this a genuine “I love pancakes.” “Oh so you hate bicycles?” moment, or is this on purpose?
If the music license expires, the game cannot be sold with the music still in it. If the developers or publisher wants to keep selling the game, they need to either remove the music or renew the license.
If the developers decide to not sell the game anymore, they should still be allowed to update the game without having to remove the music. The game is no longer for sale, the people that already bought the game can keep the game that they bought, with the music they bought the game with. Fixing a security issue or a bug in the game should not come at the expense of removing licensed music just because the update is delivered after the music license has expired, as long as the game is no longer for sale.
Private servers and fan-made updates never even enter the equation.
Yeah, that’s not how any of this works. I apologize for the caps, but just so I can make this clear for you:
YOU DIDN’T BUY THE MUSIC
The devs/publisher licensed the use of certain music in their games for a specific duration. I feel like I’m just having to tell you this again and again. Your idea of “well, they could have just…”, no. It has nothing to do with bugfixes or security issues. It has to do with the license expiring. If they don’t have a valid license to the music it must be removed (ex. GTA4).
If the music license expires, the game cannot be sold with the music still in it. If the developers or publisher wants to keep selling the game, they need to either remove the music or renew the license.If the developers decide to not sell the game anymore, they should still be allowed to update the game without having to remove the music.
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A THING. Please keep comments based in reality and not your “perfect world” thoughts on what reality should be. Reality.
Ok, you said licensed music should be removed for games that continue to be sold and then later said music should not be removed even if they choose to make updates:
You then go back on the second comment:
Maybe I’m getting confused on sold vs updated as in either case that’s a product being maintained. And I think you can already license music indefinitely, but you have to pay the copyright owner a lot more money. But to say expiry should not be part of a licensing agreement is a wild take.
Not that I’m complaining, but that’s just piracy.
A game can be updated after a music license expires AND after the game is no longer being sold. The update should not be forced to include music removal if the update happens after the expiry date of the music license, but only if the game is no longer for sale.
In other words, the publisher can push an update to people who already bought the game with no mandatory music removal. They just cannot continue to sell the game after the music license expires if they do not renew the license. License renewal should be forced to be at the same rate as originally set, and these licenses should be regulated to ensure fairness. Because it is immensely common for a music license to suddenly increased on license renewal for no apparent reason other than greed.
Considering how literally evil record label companies are, second only to Disney, in consideration of ruining copyright law, I would even say music piracy is practically a moral obligation at this point. The artists and song writers know how beneficial music piracy is to gaining a larger paying audience, but record label companies cannot help themselves bending over thousands to pick up tenths.
AFAIK, no, you cannot get an indefinite music license for synchronization. Game licenses for music are stupidly overcomplicated, but basically the terms usually amount to either a time expiry in years, or a units sold expiry. I have never heard of or seen a music license that is for more than 1 million units or is longer than 10 years, unless the record label company directly made or funded the game themselves maybe. And as video games continue to be morbidly profitable, that number will only go down, forcing more renewals.
“Oh, your game is popular and our song is in it and about to expire? Well now it costs you double and only lasts for 1 year this time. What are you going to do? Remove your song and deal with the backlash? You cant pin it on us, because we dont care and the players will say its a cop out. See you next year when we triple the license cost.”
Ok, so this is literally just your own wishful thinking. So, based on what you are wanting, the anti-SKG lawyers have a REALLY good point:
A game goes offline officially and private servers or something fan-made pops up. The devs STILL have to pay for the music licensing for all time now. Thankfully, that’s not how any of this works or will work. That’s crazy stupid.
What are you talking about? Is this a genuine “I love pancakes.” “Oh so you hate bicycles?” moment, or is this on purpose?
If the music license expires, the game cannot be sold with the music still in it. If the developers or publisher wants to keep selling the game, they need to either remove the music or renew the license.
If the developers decide to not sell the game anymore, they should still be allowed to update the game without having to remove the music. The game is no longer for sale, the people that already bought the game can keep the game that they bought, with the music they bought the game with. Fixing a security issue or a bug in the game should not come at the expense of removing licensed music just because the update is delivered after the music license has expired, as long as the game is no longer for sale.
Private servers and fan-made updates never even enter the equation.
Yeah, that’s not how any of this works. I apologize for the caps, but just so I can make this clear for you: YOU DIDN’T BUY THE MUSIC
The devs/publisher licensed the use of certain music in their games for a specific duration. I feel like I’m just having to tell you this again and again. Your idea of “well, they could have just…”, no. It has nothing to do with bugfixes or security issues. It has to do with the license expiring. If they don’t have a valid license to the music it must be removed (ex. GTA4).
If the music license expires, the game cannot be sold with the music still in it. If the developers or publisher wants to keep selling the game, they need to either remove the music or renew the license.If the developers decide to not sell the game anymore, they should still be allowed to update the game without having to remove the music.AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A THING. Please keep comments based in reality and not your “perfect world” thoughts on what reality should be. Reality.