While this does seem like bad news for code modders and their fans/users, my hope is that they only plan to enforce this when it comes to competitive play. Makes perfect sense that if virtually the entire audio/visual of a game can be changed, certain code mods out there will likely allow for cheating
(i.e.: higher scores, extra balls, etc.). Same with console games played on servers, companies try hard to ban cheaters taking advantage of honest players.

It's a poorly kept secret that Stern plans to offer an online service for their games. Once they are "turned on" they will likely want to ensure that people can feel confident that when they play against someone online, they are playing fair. They'd especially want to protect that if they are charging for this service.
Not taking their side in this matter in the least....but I do understand the concerns if they are about to (finally) offer online play.

Ay yi yi....

My guess is that stern is just Covering their ass... As any smart business should. Sucks for us.

So stern is taking a page of the apple playbook.
Cool you produced something, that you want to sell?
We take 60%
Aha, we've detected unlicensed changes to your game, we will turn it off for a month, so you can remove the changes.
Next time your game will be disabled for good.

Could be in response to the streaming stuff tacked onto the covid 19 bill.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2020/12/22/penalties-for-illegal-streaming-shoehorned-into-covid-relief-bill/?sh=39e8d8987aa3

This is important to me, in absolutely no way what so ever.

Why r u reading that? ur supposed to scroll and check the box and move on sir.

I thought that a EULA implies you don’t own the software and just receive a license to use it. I remember when Sony removed support for dual booting Linux on the PS3, a paid for feature was removed from the product with no recourse to the company. Could this give stern the power to remove songs from a game after so many years?

From Wikipedia
Some copyright owners use EULAs in an effort to circumvent limitations the applicable copyright law places on their copyrights (such as the limitations in sections 107–122 of the United States Copyright Act), or to expand the scope of control over the work into areas for which copyright protection is denied by law (such as attempting to charge for, regulate or prevent private performances of a work beyond a certain number of performances or beyond a certain period of time). Such EULAs are, in essence, efforts to gain control, by contract, over matters upon which copyright law precludes control. [2] This kind of EULAs concurs in aim with DRM and both may be used as alternate methods for widening control over software.

Ok...just my 2 cents. I see several people saying that if you buy a game you don’t “Own” the software. I agree you don’t own it but you do legally own that copy. For personal use there are laws to protect you to copy and do whatever you want with it for PERSONAL use. Nothing has changed as it does not give you the rights to stream/broadcast/copy and share licensed material. Your purchase only gives you legal ownership/personal use. If you modify any product of course it voids the warranty. Now if software updates are able to detect modded software it all depends on how a manufacturer wants to handle it. It can simply replace all with a complete update or deny the update until correct software is installed.

The laws have not changed...our technology has and the law is trying to enforce them the best they can in this digital age. The question is to what level and who will they target to enforce them. Streaming providers such as Twitch have an obligation to monitor and not stream licensed content. The actual person streaming it is technically the one committing the violation and there is a digital trail so anyone doing this can be identified and charged. In most streams it’s dumb to think people are capturing crappy audio to bootleg. You can’t copy software from watching a stream of it.

Personally I think it foolish for laws to stop it but some guidelines should be established to ensure licensed content is not stolen by streaming. If people are enjoying steaming/watching streams companies should embrace it as it a great way to promote/sell their product. They can make more money selling vs paying lawyers to shut it down.

Take a music pin for example..if I was in a band and someone streamed the game I wouldn’t care. The music from the game can’t be “given” to the general public and it may only generate new fans/music sales. It’s FREE promotion.

If the future is DLC then it’s up to Stern on how it is purchased and downloaded to protect it from being stolen and bootlegged. And if things go to a subscription service I am totally out on that crap.

That's easy for you to say, but Lars was really planning on having that Gold Plated Shark Tank installed for Christmas.

I thought it was more a move to stop streamers showing machines that are running custom audio/video code - I hadn't considered there'd be an issue with showing the official code base. Either way I agree that they are covering themselves from any litigation

That people think Stern would brick machines for breaking EULA is the dumbest thing I’ve read on this site

Xbox and PlayStation don’t even do that. You just get kicked off the online servers. The console still works just as if it wasn’t online.

LOL!!! That’s funny because Metallica are the biggest hypocrites and sell outs of all. Back in the 80’s they ENCOURAGED fans to record their shows and didn’t care. As they got corrupted with money/greed they changed their stance on that. I don’t blame them but it’s pretty ironic. They have become everything they said they wouldn’t do. I am not saying a band should be taken to heart literally for every lyric/song they write but Whiplash is song they should listen to and take a long good look in the mirror and reflect on. They are not THAT band anymore. The music could still evolve and be that band but they are far from it.

This is more than CYA, IMHO.

The reason is what they've already been doing as far as Pinball Browser is concerned. They started actively encrypting firmware months ago and as Ollie cracked it they kept changing it up to make him work even harder. Now there's language in the posted license to not only strengthen the "don't distribute hacked firmware" (which was already illegal), but they are trying to say you aren't ALLOWED to create tools to hack firmware. Which is....crazy. On top of that, they are also trying to grant themselves the right to brick YOUR machine if they detect you've installed hacked firmware. That's...REALLY CRAZY.

And then there is the clause that says you can't install anything with "Unauthorized Content or Unauthorized Software" on your machine period. That would preclude popular mods that have no affect on gameplay like the Tron minicab (it has both content and software!), Pinduino light shows, the Metallica video player, etc. Again, a vast overreach.

It's interesting that it's gone so quickly, but what was in it is quite telling, IMHO. If they are going to try to enforce ANYTHING other than "don't try to connect hacked firmware to our network service" and "don't distribute hacked versions of our content to other people", I'm never buying Stern again.

--Donnie

It really all reads like CYA to me

Put on custom code and break your machine? Tough luck we told you not to

Put on a mod and the machine catches fire? Tough luck we told you not to

Get a DMCA strike/fine while steaming? Tough luck we told you not to

Get in trouble for modifying code and distributing assets with IP you don’t have the right to? Tough luck we told you not to.

Software licenses are a weird concept in general when it comes to “ownership” and rights to repair/modify.

Sorry, that line doesn't jive... because Stern would have no liability in that scenario to start with.

The quoted line is talking about what the wording says - not an interpretation of Stern's ultimate end goal.

While what you say is correct - but it really is a different animal entirely from the streaming discussion. The pinbrowser/etc is about protecting the content and likeness.. keeping the licensed product true to what was intended.

Nah - this is all about legal - not competitive.

When you can literally change the physical aspect of the game and the software can't do anything about it (outlanes, tilt bob, etc) -- protecting against 'hacked' software is pretty far down the list in terms of level competition.

Curious to hear Jack's take on this since he is in direct contact with Stern and does streaming for a living. Will he stream Led Zeppelin himself when it's out?

this big time.

its nuts that stern have put this into their EULA - it puts them in the frame when they where not before! it would like sony having an Eula for you pointing you phone camera at your sony tv!

But streaming what you’re watching on TV would be illegal. It wouldn’t be that odd to remind people in a EULA they don’t have permission to do that. (Maybe it is? Some EULAs have crazy stuff in them. Apple EULAs make you promise not to make or research nuclear weapon production)

It’s not the game that’s the issue. It’s all the assets that Stern does not have the explicit permission to grant the end user the right to stream

They’re merely clarifying a gray area. Wouldn’t be shocked if their business partners asked for it to be included.

But here’s the rub...you’re actually not streaming those assets in any way that anyone would find reasonable as the way to consume those assets. That is to say nobody watches a pinball video of someone playing Metallica as the way to listen to Metallica’s music. In fact, it’s somewhat ruined by the pinball noises. No party could claim damages since no reasonable person could conclude that this would keep someone from buying those assets themselves. It won’t hurt Metallica music sales, it won’t hurt Stern pinball sales, etc. So in that sense, it’s simply not piracy of any kind, and no reasonable court would rule that it was.

I’m honestly at a pretty big loss as to what Stern could be thinking with the streaming thing. Even if one of the licensors asked for it, it’s simply an unreasonable request, as well as likely completely unenforceable one. There’s so much in this EULA that really just makes them look like greedy assholes. It’s more than a little mind boggling for a company that sells HARDWARE to be this worried about the software that runs on it.

—Donnie

It’s not Stern that is upset with streaming. It’s the RIAA that is doing take down notices.

Yeah, we all know no one is getting music like that. But the law is bad and this is the result.

Except the idea of using the music in promotion or as part of your own content is damage enough because that normally would be something the artists would license for use. This isn't really about 'I get free mp3s by ripping this'.. it's the value of the property and it's association.. in addition to its performance value.

Music has value even as background... ask anyone who has tried to put on a show with zero music anywhere in the program

Even KennyG smooth jazz is copyrighted

Nice old south park reference.

This+is+the+home+of+lars+ulrich+the+drummer+for+_f1030c0983c95e904c9fb87af38728cc (resized).png

Isn’t whether or not Stern could be held liable up to a court to decide? Wouldn’t the clause in the EULA help Stern if ever taken to court? I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see how it would hurt.

The thing I do see here is how we treat music different from all other forms of art thanks to the music industry lobby. I don’t personally believe we should, so these extreme measures to protect this situation bother me. I know it’s hard to police how much a thing helps or hurts another piece of art, but we go too far with music.

An example...the theme song for the TV show Friends made the creators a LOT of money. But what about the designer of the couch they used ALL THE TIME in Central Perk? I’m guessing the makers of that couch got...the price of a couch. Now, sure, it’s not as valuable to the show as the theme song was, and not particularly close. But I’d say it was worth WAY more than the price of a couch, too. Yet, there’s no protection built into law for the couch designer to see a red cent, so they won’t.

Now, that’s not to say I think we need to extend these laws so every single item on a TV set makes the creator money. And certainly something like the theme song to Friends *should* make the creators a good bit of money. But we also live in the world where only the very first season of WKRP in Cincinatti is available on DVD or streaming because of music rights. The issue is that in almost every episode of the show there are scenes in the DJ booth and in those scenes they often return from or spin up a record for the radio station, thus playing maybe three seconds of music. When they created and aired the show, they only paid for a license for their original run of the show, not a license in perpetuity. Someone bought the rights to the show to create DVDs (back before streaming) and didn’t realize this until they started production. At that point they found it more cost effective to edit the show to remove licensed music and add cheaper stuff, but only for the first season. Currently there isn’t apparently an economic model that makes it profitable to “fix” the rest of the seasons to make them available. So all we now have is unoriginal art of the first season and lost art for the rest, thanks to the music industry’s stranglehold on THREE SECOND BURSTS of music.

I’d argue that tiny amount of music should basically be fair use. It’s a show about a radio station, not a show promoting music. Or selling music. Does the music help? I mean sure. But I’d argue the amount is paltry enough that there should be *some* model where this could work. But the recording industry wants a much bigger piece of this pie than they deserve.

It’s the same as acting like they deserve any part of royalties for someone streaming themselves playing pinball. They licensed their work to appear in that pinball machine and that should include ANYWHERE that pinball machine appears, period. The fact that not only is this not the case, but that the recording industry can coerce other industries into protecting their IP *for them*, just shows how broken the system is, IMHO.

But I also contend that there are many parts of this Stern EULA that go far beyond just helping protect the music industry’s profits. This business about Stern reserving the right to brick your machine is even worse. *sigh*

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. *sigh*

—Donnie

The law already covers this and with pretty fair rules. What your example falls into is trademark and likeness... not performance or redistribution. And just like you can't trademark common, indistinguishable things, you couldn't trademark a generic couch. Trademark is not the same kind of protection in discussion here. Your example isn't really valid, nor applicable to the topic on hand.

I think the point was that compensation seemed unbalanced where an artist (or copyright holder) gets paid over and over again until what is effectively the end of time, unlike the maker of the couch (or any other object), who only gets paid once upon the production of the item.

So yes, payment for copyrighted/trademarked artistic works don't work like getting paid for producing a general use item.

And also my problem is some folks see a couch as a “general use item” but can’t see music EVER being the same way. You just wrote off the *potential* for anyone to even consider a couch art, which I find unusual and somewhat incorrect since I guarantee you furniture designers DO consider themselves artists. And we’ve granted music creators rights that extend to even when their art is used as friggin background noise in some MUCH larger piece of art. Now what we’re talking about is making sure artists get *double* paid, I guess, since apparently the only way to legally stream yourself playing a new Stern pinball would be to *also* license the music that Stern already licensed for the game.

My position is thus: the artist got paid when they licensed the pinball machine. As long as the art is being used in the pinball machine, what the owner of the pinball machine does after that with said music, as long as it’s consistent with what it was licensed for should be fine. Ie. You can’t sample the music out of the game and use it for other purposes, but you SHOULD be able to play the game itself as part of any other performative work. This is consistent with how we treat other pieces of art. Valuable paintings or prints thereof can be in movie scenes without the owner being REQUIRED to be compensated additionally, etc.

Sure, you want use a song as part of the audio track in a movie, you pay for that work. You want to use a pinball machine that has licensed audio in it? You should just have to own or rent the pinball machine. *shrug*

Now, this is NOT how laws governing the use of music work, I’m more talking about how *I* think they should work.

—Donnie

Copyright law is broken because y'all repeatedly elect lawmakers who keep accepting money from guilds and passing crazy copyright extension laws in return. Neither the guilds nor the congresscritters give a rat's ass about the end consumers.

Original Copyright Act of 1790 – established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal. This was during a time when it might take all 14 years to actually produce enough copies of your work and distribute them to your audience.

Today, copyright is 95/120 years or life of author plus 70 years. In a time when an author can publish their work instantly to a global audience for immediate purchase.

It's really fucking stupid, and it stays that way because everyone is too wrapped up in abortion or guns or healthcare or whatnot to pay attention. How many times was copyright reform mentioned in this year's Congressional campaigns? We keep electing the same weak-ass people who basically take bribes, and copyright holders keep profiting.

Works from 1925 are entering the public domain in 2021:

https://asclibrary.wordpress.com/2020/12/17/public-domain-day-2021/

Most of them haven't been commercially relevant or viable in decades.

Because one is comparing two entirely different things/values and just using the common thread of 'how one gets paid' to try to compare them.

One is comparing the idea of buying a tangible thing, while the other is the original thought/work.

Imagine if you were the person who drew a picture, but the first time you shared it with someone else you gave up all rights to it. That's what you are equating... the idea that simply because someone 'bought something' it would negate any ownership of the original ideas or the creativity. That's not a place people want to be.

The comparison of 'getting paid once' vs 'many' is just a muddying of the waters that fixates on a mechanism and misses the actual important core concepts.

yeh but its not Sony's fault that you streamed live TV, just like it isn't Stern's fault you streamed their pinball game.

Yeah.

Literal questions of Life and Death, Inalienable Rights...

all of that pales in comparison to one true issue that simultaneously binds and plagues all of Humanity: Pinball Streaming.

God Love Ya, Pinside.

What if I stream a Stern that I don’t own? I have several at my house that are owned by someone else and I didn’t agree to any software license when they came through the front door.

Another thing to note is even if you get a green light from Stern (or not) to stream you also have Twitch and their fine print to worry about.

I had a hunch my streaming archive of Metallica wouldn’t end well and it didn’t (archived had loss of audio) but they didn’t care about my AC/DC one bit. Again, no surprise. From a monetization perspective I wasn’t partnered with Twitch at the time so was not benefiting from them monetarily.

As someone new to live streaming I do notice a majority of games being broadcast are new Sterns. I wonder if that will taper off soon? I can see most of the demand being for the latest game for those who can’t get in front of one ASAP.

No reverse engineering means get your hands off figuring out those node boards I suppose?

Except for “lovers in quarantine” that one aged like fine wine

The music and steaming stuff doesn’t bother me...it’s of no surprise....what gets me are the areas that are 100 percent by Stern for Stern. They are setting up for Wi-FI basically. Personally I’d rip the SOB out the second it went through my door *illegal!!!!

It’s going to get ugly. Every time you guys keep buying Sterns your voting with your wallet “I’m OK with this”. In my opinion people should have stopped buying Sterns the minute Gary approved leaving off/up sale of UV lighting in Stranger Things. Some can go back to the inferior Spike system and whatnot...There are many more examples, but the UV is a great showing of how conniving he is.

*Fook Stern. All my money goes to everyone else now.

This has always been an argument since the IoT began. If you hadn't noticed...people ARE okay with it. Those of us who aren't are few and far between.

Sold my Jurassic Park Premium today to be a Stern-free house. They'll never get my business again. Not to mention their products don't hold water against JJPs but that's a different thread altogether

Isn't is funny? Somebody asking people to pay $8000 for an entertainment product. And then demanding them not to show any enjoyment of it in public. Where has the world come to?

Of course Stern is in a pinch here. I genuinely believe Mr. GS when he says that they are demanded to have stuff under control.

The whole interpretation of "a violation" is also cute. Because no one who wants to enjoy Led Zeppelin music or Guns'n'Roses music would tune into a pinball gameplay video. Right. They would not spend a second on in, if they should stumble upon it in their search for music to enjoy. But find the MUSIC elsewhere.

This letter is to inform you that our software has determined you are using the incorrect balls in your pinball machine. We thoroughly suggest she use the Factory Balls complete with surface rust otherwise you will void the warranty on your machine. If you do not comply we will turn off your game.

Current licensing agreements don’t make it easy (or affordable) for the general population to respect copyrights, while technology makes it super easy to ignore them. Until the laws and pricing structures start to better reflect the realities of “micro broadcasting” (ie not charging 6 figure fees for regular usage), most end users are going to circumvent or ignore the law as long as possible.

IMO this all sounds like a stupid law that is an evolutionary step backward. Give it 6-12 months. It will sort itself out and will go back to the way things were...or nobody will enforce this.

This is just Stern covering their backside. Gary is a lawyer, after all.

There will be a stupid, awkward period in the meantime.

State Penitentiary conversation:

You: What are you in for?

Criminal: Murder. You?

You: I installed Pin Stadiums in my pinball machine.

And people keep wondering why older game prices are skyrocketing and becoming difficult to find.

Twitch and Facebook and other sites that allow you to stream video just need to get with the program and do what YouTube has done. If YouTube detects content that is copyrighted (music) it simply monetizes the video and pays the copyright holders. The problem is solved. No strikes, no copyright issues etc etc. The downside is content creators cant make money from streaming content with music in it.

Solution #2 is just kill the audio track from the machine. That solves the problem as well but takes away part of the experience. Unless the copyright holders are going to argue that simply showing a photo or video of a copyrighted image on your stream is a no go. If so good luck posting videos of your trip to Disneyland etc.

Meteor

Tell that to Jack who just had yesterday's stream video taken down on YouTube. There's two possible outcomes on YouTube - one is as you say above, the other is a copyright strike on your account. As a content creator there's no way to predict which will apply to you.

Yeah, I was about to say I had 2 tribute band videos just put on strike and they weren't even public. It is crazy stupid.

Going to try my best to not be political here... but...

One of those issues has been to the Supreme Court and settled, One is written into our constitution.

So I think the point was.. "instead of continuing to talk about things that have been solved for decades, why dont we solve some issues that haven't been"

Streaming, RIAA, copyrights, and such are a wasteland of shit that almost no one can navigate without a take down notice, or a letter from the RIAA.

It needs fixing.

Not quite...

Youtube does have good “levels” of options. They start with basically removing the audio... then you can be “demonetized”... you can share revenue IF the ip holder choses... or the IP holder can insist it come down entirely.

Point being, coming down is because the IP holder wants it that way.