Poll of the Day > wow you aren't allowed to talk about a game before the game releases apparently

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's illegal to talk about acquiring game ROMs.

"Punishing," in this case, meaning "deleting your topic and telling you not to have this discussion for another week and a half." Not exactly a violation of the Geneva convention. As I said, absolute worst case scenario, that minor inconvenience isn't actually warranted, but it covers them from having to worry about Nintendo getting uppity (which there's ample precedent for because they're really butthurt about anything to do with leaking TotK). That's a pretty simple cost-benefit analysis to perform, and the conclusion they arrived at is the obvious best course of action.

Please quote the part of my post where I said that.

https://tinyurl.com/mu6erntt

In practice, of course, unless you're posting it in a public space or the person you're telling it to is secretly one of Nintendo's lawyers, it's astronomically unlikely that you'll face any consequences for going that.

That says nothing about breaking a street date.

not only is this not a public forum,

Nintendo has already done that, and the single image i posted was one they showed in a trailer

when asked if there was dungeons, i only ever said that i couldn't answer that

of you paid any attention, i very specifically said or showed nothing Nintendo didn't show themselves

All of it since you clearly missed the point of his post.

But could you even get in trouble in that case what would they get you for? I still havent seen the law where you cant own the game ahead of time. And if youre just talking about it and not displaying it, that should be fine, too, right?

This would definitely qualify as a public forum for the purpose of displaying copyrighted content.

Then that gets back to modding the topic as a CYA measure. Sifting through the topic and comparing it against everything officially released is more work than is worthwhile when the absolute worst possible outcome of modding the topic is that you have to wait a week and a half to have the discussion you want.

My entire post very obviously did not say that it's illegal to discuss unreleased games. If that's how you interpreted it, then you need to try again, preferably actually reading what I say instead of deciding what I must be saying if I seem to disagree with the rigidly-defined position you've decided to adopt.

it would if it wasn't a privately owned forum

GameFAQs being privately owned doesn't stop it from being a public forum. Anyone can access it and read posts without even making an account.

it would if it wasn't a privately owned forum

uh huh, which leads back into post #34

did you even look at what the moderator gave me for the reason

you interpreted it as something different that what it actually says.

if you must agree to a terms of service before being able to use said website puts it, in the eyes of the law, not public

It's publicly accessible with zero access control whatsoever for viewing. Any content that is displayed here is visible to literally the entire Internet (except in regions where the site is banned, which I'm sure exist).

Welcome to the concept of subtext and interpreting the broader picture to identify and correct people's mistakes for them.

I'm still waiting for somebody to identify and correct the mistake that they believe I made that subtextually implied that I do believe it's illegal to discuss unreleased games

guys, please get lives. thanks.

My entire post very obviously did not say that it's illegal to discuss unreleased games. If that's how you interpreted it, then you need to try again, preferably actually reading what I say instead of deciding what I must be saying if I seem to disagree with the rigidly-defined position you've decided to adopt.

Rev, could you just shut the fuck up

No. There's definitely no reason to shut up about something I'm not wrong about anyway.

I just meant in general. With the board.

"You are not allowed to discuss a game before it has officially come out."

this is what you are defending.

The moderator note says otherwise which your original post had no reason to even defend it which you were doing.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/reggie-threatens-to-go-liam-neeson-mode-on-early-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-player/1100-6513816/?ftag=CAD-01-10abi2f

they'll send the Pinkertons after you!

because this topic is literally just about what it says at face value

How did they not realize that was a joke?

Given that he is no longer affiliated with Nintendo, Reggie's tweet is just a joke.

What do you think the boards one can't access without registering - which are numerous - would count as, public or private?

And if the mods actually wanted to go the CYA route, why not simply make the TotK board private until the release date?

And it's in no way illegal to play a game prior to its release date, or else official reviewers everywhere, who have been handed copies to review in advance of said release date, would be 100% f---ed.

using a legal copy in a way that's not permitted under the distribution contract.

The distribution contract is between the retailer and the distributor.

In which case the distributor is going to want to know which retailer broke their contract, which means contacting the person with the illegally-distributed copy.

You made a topic just to take something at literal face value that very obviously shouldn't be taken at literal face value?

lmfao what a stupid statement to make

but i don't care about that, i care about that ridiculous statement from the mod lol, it's funny

If they actually suspect illegal-activity, they can contact the police, instead of sleuthing around themselves.

i never hid that that was the point of the topic

Tbf, even though that screenshot is funny out of context, you were leaking gameplay and screenshots from an unreleased game and Gamefaqs mods need to crack down on that to stay on the safe side

It implies illegal activities because you obviously pirated it, which by itself makes it a fair moderation.

i might be goofy, but im no idiot

But really that sort of thing would be moderated on GBAtemp, a hacking forum where "backup" loaders are made.

In which case the distributor is going to want to know which retailer broke their contract, which means contacting the person with the illegally-distributed copy.

Can we just appreciate for another minute that some mod thinks that you're not allowed to talk about games before the release date

i did not say anything, or post any images, that weren't something you would have seen in that mini direct they did to show off the combining. im sure you know how to check the archive

ive been floating around other boards here, they straight up are squashing any and all topics about the leak, even if it's just to say that it exists

It wouldn't be an illegal copy. It's a civil issue, not criminal. The person who got the copy early would be liable for nothing.

If Nintendo really wanted to go for it and there were concrete damages that could be claimed as a result of the leaked copy, the customer could be treated as an accessory to those damages if they aren't willing to say where they got the game. Whether or not charges/fines would actually stick would be a matter for the courts to decide, but especially where the more likely explanation here is that it's a pirated ROM being obtained and discussed and not just some store breaking street date, I expect Nintendo wouldn't have a problem getting a subpoena to get the user's information from GameFAQs so they could pursue further legal action.

This is something you seem to get stuck on a lot: Something not necessarily being illegal does not preclude companies from sending lawyers after each other to prevent it. It does mean that, if it makes it to court, the judge will probably side with the target of that legal action and not convict/fine them, but that's often a long, complicated, and expensive process. For the sake of avoiding that, it's pretty common to just give the litigious company what they want and avoid the entire hassle, especially when it's a situation like this where nothing of any particular value is lost by doing so.

It's the difference between legal rights and practical rights: Legally, the customer would probably win in court and Nintendo would have to pay any of their legal fees and possibly compensate them for the time it took. Practically, though, they need to be able to afford the legal fees in the first place, to go without that money for as long as the process takes (potentially 2-3 years), and every other entity involved has to do a bunch of administrative work (probably also involving consulting lawyers) to comply with the request. It's in everyone's best interest to avoid that from the outset, no matter how strongly principled your objection might be to not being allowed to talk about the video game two weeks early.

Honestly, given that Nintendo pressured Gamestop into firing a dude for "leaking" evidence that there would be a TotK-themed Switch and is currently trying to subpoena Discord for the identities of those involved in leaking the artbook, GameFAQs is probably protecting you more than anything (not to mention not wanting to deal with the legal hassle). Discussing a game that you are playing despite not being able to legally own it definitely falls into the Illegal Activities category, though, so this shouldn't come as a surprise.

Depends what you tell them. If you recount any part of the story (beyond what's been shown in trailers and other previews), that could be construed as publicly displaying the game's narrative and fall under copyright infringement. Just talking about the gameplay, maybe not.

More like protecting themselves. Unless somebody is breaking the news, they're hardly a target. And even if somebody is playing early, they haven't necessarily broken any laws -- certainly not themselves (unless they're specifically pirating or stole the copy).

And way to shill for Nintendo and Gamefaqs.

I'm like 95% sure that's protected by the first amendment and fair use laws because journalists have broken details about movies, games, etc, like that in the past.

It feels like you're trying to give Nintendo special protections not enjoyed by anybody else.