Ever considered the fact that you can steal reviews?

[Yaginku]

The new system allows that. Just find a popular review, copy and paste it anew. It will show as "recent" and people will see your review, instead of the original and maybe even make it the most popular.
Happened to my Fallout 4 review. Is Steam planning to do something with it?

[𝕙.𝕓𝕒𝕣𝕜𝕒𝕤]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από raythr:

LMAO someone steals your review ?
piracy, intellectual property, dmca etc

you guys are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ kidding me ?


also your "precious" review is gone after 30 days anyway

You don't get it. If a platform like Steam does nothing to protect the rights of their customers why are we supposed to respect theirs? It's a discussion of principle - why should corporations be treated better than individuals? If you did this to a corporation they would send a bunch of lawyers after you.

[raythr]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από h.barkas:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από raythr:

LMAO someone steals your review ?
piracy, intellectual property, dmca etc

you guys are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ kidding me ?


also your "precious" review is gone after 30 days anyway

You don't get it. If a platform like Steam does nothing to protect the rights of their customers why are we supposed to respect theirs? It's a discussion of principle - why should corporations be treated better than individuals? If you did this to a corporation they would send a bunch of lawyers after you.

if youd follow steam
youd know they only act if something hurts their own wallet


EA scams ? nothing done, they get the money from it
greenlight flooding steam with trash ? nothing done, they get the money from it
refunds ? nothing done, they keep the money from it

and so on

i dont see how they lose money from a copied review
so yeah, steam doesnt care about it

[76109108007942031]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από h.barkas:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από raythr:

LMAO someone steals your review ?
piracy, intellectual property, dmca etc

you guys are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ kidding me ?


also your "precious" review is gone after 30 days anyway

You don't get it. If a platform like Steam does nothing to protect the rights of their customers why are we supposed to respect theirs? It's a discussion of principle - why should corporations be treated better than individuals? If you did this to a corporation they would send a bunch of lawyers after you.

Except that a review only lasts about 30 days and doesn't generate any income. Their only use is for spreading your opinion of a game, which will be easier if someone copies your review.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Income? It's not suddenly okay to copy people's stuff and pass it off as your own just because they're not earning any money from it. How people distribute anything they create, no matter how small and inconsequential you may find it, is their decision.

[Spawn of Totoro]

While plagerism is unethical and not a nice thing to do, it is not classified as a form of copyright. User based reviews have never been shown to be included in any for of copy protection. There has never been someone sued over such a matter, nor has it even been to a court of law.

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/10/07/difference-copyright-infringement-plagiarism/

I doubt any company will take measures against user review plagerism. One reason being is that there is no law protecting such reviews, another is that is it most likely seen as such a small matter, with so little impact on the entire review system, it doesn't warrant the extra cost.

Sadly, there is no legal protection for such an issue. One could try suing someone over it in civil court, but is it worth the time, effort and cost? Beside those, you usualy have to show you lost something (or someone made something) as well and since one does not (usualy) make money off of their review...

For now, I would say it is a grey area.

You can always report it and maybe Valve will remove the other review, but I make no promises.

I would also suggest people never copy another user's review. It isn't hard to make one's own review. Use it as a guide, fine, but never take it as your own when it is not.

[76109108007942031]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Gus the Crocodile:

Income? It's not suddenly okay to copy people's stuff and pass it off as your own just because they're not earning any money from it. How people distribute anything they create, no matter how small and inconsequential you may find it, is their decision.

So you think Steam should dedicate money and resources to hunting down people who copy a review that will disappear in 30 days anyway?

[Gus the Crocodile]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Spawn of Totoro:

While plagerism is unethical and not a nice thing to do, it is not classified as a form of copyright.

Not really sure what the logic of this "not a form of copyright" part is. It's correct, of course, but only in the same way that "things that are red" is not a form of "things that are buckets", and yet red buckets exist. As the article you posted points out, despite plagiarism being an ethical matter and thus subject to different definitions by different institutions, many acts that would be considered plagiarism are also copyright infringement.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Spawn of Totoro:

User based reviews have never been shown to be included in any for of copy protection.

Shown? It doesn't need to be "shown", it's assumed. In signatory countries to the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic. And reviews, like other forms of writing, are copyrightable works. This is not a "grey area". Copying someone's review without their permission is copyright infringement.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Sir Illic:

So you think Steam should dedicate money and resources to hunting down people who copy a review that will disappear in 30 days anyway?

I'm not asking Valve to "hunt down" anything. I think they should respond appropriately to legitimate takedown requests they receive, and I would like people to respect the rights of others to decide how they distribute their work, rather than minimising that right just because there isn't money involved.

[76109108007942031]

I just think it's not a big enough deal for Valve to need to do anything about it.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Gus the Crocodile:

Not really sure what the logic of this "not a form of copyright" part is. It's correct, of course, but only in the same way that "things that are red" is not a form of "things that are buckets", and yet red buckets exist. As the article you posted points out, despite plagiarism being an ethical matter and thus subject to different definitions by different institutions, many acts that would be considered plagiarism are also copyright infringement.

Because it isn't. They are still two seperate things that happen to overlap, just as it states in the article. They are two diffrent things. That site is about nothing but plagiarism and preventing it, so if they were the same thing, then the site would have said that.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Spawn of Totoro:

Shown? It doesn't need to be "shown", it's assumed. In signatory countries to the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic. And reviews, like other forms of writing, are copyrightable works. This is not a "grey area". Copying someone's review without their permission is copyright infringement.

Show me a court case where someone has gone to court over a plagiarized user review. There is none, so there is no precedence for it. The problem is that if you "assume" when it comes to law, you will most likely get proven wrong if it ever goes to a court.

Yes, it is a grey area, no is it not copyright infringement, as much as you would like it to be. It will remain a grey area until there is a precidence set one way or another.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Spawn of Totoro:

Because it isn't. They are still two seperate things that happen to overlap, just as it states in the article. They are two diffrent things. That site is about nothing but plagiarism and preventing it, so if they were the same thing, then the site would have said that.

Yes, just like copyright and grandmothers are two separate things. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that plagiarism, like grandmothers, is irrelevant to the question of whether copying something is copyright infringement.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Spawn of Totoro:

Show me a court case where someone has gone to court over a plagiarized user review. There is none, so there is no precedence for it. The problem is that if you "assume" when it comes to law, you will most likely get proven wrong if it ever goes to a court.

Yes, it is a grey area, no is it not copyright infringement, as much as you would like it to be. It will remain a grey area until there is a precidence set one way or another.

Don't assume, he says, while making unsupported claims concerning every court in the world. Yeah, no. If you want to make a claim about courts, you can back it up yourself, it's not my job to assume you're correct until I prove otherwise.

What part of what I said, precisely, do you dispute in order to reach your conclusions?

Do you dispute that reviews are copyrightable works?
Do you dispute that copyright is automatic?
Do you dispute that Steam is subject to the Berne Convention (and other copyright treaties like WIPO as implemented through the DMCA)?

The article you posted in no way backs up the idea that reviews aren't subject to copyright (indeed it lists things like "blog posts" specifically).

[76109108007942031]

I find it funny that we're bringing law into a discussion about Steam reviews that last 30 days.

[Perrywinkle]

guys, your are making a storm in a glass of water, plagiarism is bad but thinking in copyright for a review is like thinking in copyright because someone stole one of your jokes because is funny, unless you are a comedian and that are you income it's irrelevant if someone stole it, is just unethical.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Sucy:

guys, your are making a storm in a glass of water, plagiarism is bad but thinking in copyright for a review is like thinking in copyright because someone stole one of your jokes because is funny, unless you are a comedian and that are you income it's irrelevant if someone stole it, is just unethical.

It's not "just" unethical. It's still illegal even if you don't want to act on it, and maybe someone else, in your position, would act differently. That's the point here.

I understand many people won't see something like this as a big deal - that's fine, that's their right, and their decision, and I respect that. I'm not arguing because I think this one review being copied is a catastrophe of social justice that needs rectifying immediately. I'm arguing because how important it is to any individual creator should always be their decision, not something we assume to be no big deal on everyone's behalf.

And because moderators, the people tasked with making decisions that affect people's rights in this community, coming down on the side of insisting people don't have rights over their creations, is gross.

[76109108007942031]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Gus the Crocodile:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Sucy:

guys, your are making a storm in a glass of water, plagiarism is bad but thinking in copyright for a review is like thinking in copyright because someone stole one of your jokes because is funny, unless you are a comedian and that are you income it's irrelevant if someone stole it, is just unethical.

It's not "just" unethical. It's still illegal even if you don't want to act on it, and maybe someone else, in your position, would act differently. That's the point here.

I understand many people won't see something like this as a big deal - that's fine, that's their right, and their decision, and I respect that. I'm not arguing because I think this one review being copied is a catastrophe of social justice that needs rectifying immediately. I'm arguing because how important it is to any individual creator should always be their decision, not something we assume to be no big deal on everyone's behalf.

And because moderators, the people tasked with making decisions that affect people's rights in this community, coming down on the side of insisting people don't have rights over their creations, is gross.

If someone's really this upset about and it's illegal they can take it to court, no need for Steam to spend more money on something that really isn't that important.

[Gus the Crocodile]

They don't need to take it to court, and Valve don't need to do anything they haven't already organised for. I linked to Steam's own DMCA takedown form earlier in the thread.