Video game licence expiration. Why tracks have been removed

[seck]

NOTE: This is not a discussion about the resolution, save or mouse control issues. Do not post about that or go off topic.

Music licenses are sold to Rockstar from around $5,000 - $30,000 per track. Each of these tracks are sold with legal contracts only allowing Rockstar to use them for 7 - 10 years. Because it's now been over 10 years, it is illegal for Rockstar to continue distributing copies of the same game with unlicensed music tracks.

Before you post please watch the following video explaining the reason for the removal of the tracks.

http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/video+game+licensing

Originally posted by Jeffrey Brabec:

Jeffrey Brabec, Vice President of Business Affairs for the Chrysalis Music Group, talks about video game licensing. It is an area that is extremely beneficial to music. Brabec explains that while video games do not generate royalties, they do produce a flat fee. However, this normally involves a song buyout. He points out that if the artist does not agree to a buyout, their song won't be put in the video game. Brabec claims that he's seen buyouts from zero to 30,000 dollars. Also in this segment, Brabec discusses the duration of video game licenses. Video games licenses are generally for seven to ten years. Brabec talks about why this might be a mistake in the long run. The video game might stay around or be turned into a movie. The importance of negotiating the best deal possible is covered as well. Brabec also talks about what makes a good publisher. A publisher is responsible for looking after the rights of the writers. Therefore, they must know where to draw the line to protect a song.

Please also be aware that you do not, and never owned the tracks that were removed from the game. You never had the rights to the music or the software Rockstar created. You owned a copy of the game and not the software(GTA SA). If you don't understand what this means, please do not comment until you understand completely.

http://www.rockstargames.com/eula

The Software is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership in the Software is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights in the Software. Licensor retains all right, title, and interest to the Software, including, but not limited to, all copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, trade names, proprietary rights, patents, titles, computer codes, audiovisual effects, themes, characters, character names, stories, dialog, settings, artwork, sounds effects, musical works, and moral rights.

[Zeron]

It's illegal!

We bought the original game and we are entitled to keep the soundtrack it had. With the crappy new update, we lost some tracks and we got nothing good out of it. Hell, there's people reporting that the intros were also cut aswell!

For those who say stuff like "uuhhh, you could just add the tracks to the music player". It's not the same nostalgic feeling having all in a player, I liked to go through the radio stations.

Rockstar, stop treating your customers like ♥♥♥♥.

[FreshPrinceRemix]

its not illegal, ur just gonna have to deal with it

[Zeron]

Originally posted by darude-sandstorm:

its not illegal, ur just gonna have to deal with it

Of course it's illegal. Imagine if you bought a CD of your favorite band and then someone steps in and removes some tracks from it. If you think that's fair then you like to live in a world where lame copyright policies should take over our lives.

We bought the game with those features and having them removed is neither ethical nor legal.

[SonsOfLiberty86]

*Edit: We may be *renting* the game as some people here are saying, but there is nothing in the EULA permitting the seller/store/company to retroactively take back something that we had previously purchased from them - espcially when this whole ordeal happened with Vice City but they let us keep the music (people who already owned the game). It's not the same as an MMO game updating new content and removing old - in that scenario at least they are still adding new content. This is just flat out content removal. And besides, they let us keep music in Vice City - why not here? They had the same exact "licensing deal", yet in that game people who already owned it on Steam didn't lose songs. Why would that happen here? Is it really about the "licensing" as you all say? Is it really permitted in the EULA under some special rule that allows removal of in-game soundtracks down the road? If that does exist in the EULA, please show me where it says that?

[FreshPrinceRemix]

Originally posted by Zeron:

Originally posted by darude-sandstorm:

its not illegal, ur just gonna have to deal with it

Of course it's illegal. Imagine if you bought a CD of your favorite band and then someone steps in and removes some tracks from it. If you think that's fair then you like to live in a world where lame copyright policies should take over our lives.

We bought the game with those features and having them removed is neither ethical nor legal.

i dont like it, but u should probably have a read of the terms and conditions

[Zeron]

Originally posted by darude-sandstorm:

Originally posted by Zeron:

Of course it's illegal. Imagine if you bought a CD of your favorite band and then someone steps in and removes some tracks from it. If you think that's fair then you like to live in a world where lame copyright policies should take over our lives.

We bought the game with those features and having them removed is neither ethical nor legal.

i dont like it, but u should probably have a read of the terms and conditions

And where does it say that they can take something away from us?

[FreshPrinceRemix]

Originally posted by Zeron:

Originally posted by darude-sandstorm:

i dont like it, but u should probably have a read of the terms and conditions

And where does it say that they can take something away from us?

dude, i highly doubt rockstar would do something illegal, and i didnt say IT WAS IN THERE i said u should have a read

[Retrotude]

Originally posted by SonsOfLiberty86:

Actually yes it is illegal, in the US at least. In the US, when a consumer purchases a product from a seller they are entering into a contractual agreement. After the purchase is completed, the seller has no legal right to take back the product from the person who purchased it. There is no legal right for a seller/store/company to retroactively take back something that someone had previously purchased from them.

Unless San Andreas disappeared from your Steam library, they did not take it back from you at all. They have the right to make modifications to their product whenever the hell they feel like it. There's no law that says developers aren't allowed to release patches for their games that modify in-game media. Although, I agree that I'll miss having good songs like It Takes Two blasting on the radio. But I'm not worried, as I also own a disc copy of the game.

[Zeron]

Originally posted by darude-sandstorm:

Originally posted by Zeron:

And where does it say that they can take something away from us?

dude, i highly doubt rockstar would do something illegal, and i didnt say IT WAS IN THERE i said u should have a read

I read those things all the time and I don't recall such thing.

What I do recall however, is that in a lot of countries, this thing is illegal and Rockstar could face real lawsuits. No, I'm not going to sue them over this, but I could after all this.

[Cat Planet (●´ω｀●)]

You know what they say, when you buy a game on Steam you don't actually buy it you just buy the right to play it.

[FreshPrinceRemix]

Originally posted by Twelve:

You know what they say, when you buy a game on Steam you don't actually buy it you just buy the right to play it.

exactly

[Tekkie.X]

If the record companies the music has been licenced from have told them to remove some tracks because those licences have expired then they have to comply, otherwise, lawsuits.

Some companies might have timed licences for say 10 years, others may offer a one use licence that lets you use the track in one movie/show/game but have to pay the money again to use it somewhere else.

This is the downside to digital media.

[FreshPrinceRemix]

Originally posted by Zeron:

Originally posted by darude-sandstorm:

dude, i highly doubt rockstar would do something illegal, and i didnt say IT WAS IN THERE i said u should have a read

I read those things all the time and I don't recall such thing.

What I do recall however, is that in a lot of countries, this thing is illegal and Rockstar could face real lawsuits. No, I'm not going to sue them over this, but I could after all this.

dude omg i doubt rockstar would do anything illegal, why are u being such a ♥♥♥♥♥ about this?

[Captain Carrot]

Yeah I don't understand how this makes sense either...

I understand removing the tracks from copies of the game sold from now on, but to remove them from a copy I bought years ago when they still held the rights to the track seems very strange.

Will someone from Rockstar come knocking on my door and demand I return my physical copy of GTA San Andreas for the ps2 too so they can replace it with a version without the songs? I better hide it in the Bully case. Best to hide my RDR disc in there as well in case Rockstar loses the rights to that one Jose Gonzales song too some time in the future. Game wouldn't be the same without it.

[PerseidX]

You bought a license to the game, not to the music contained in the game, so this is in no way illegal. It just sucks.