I still don't "get" this. Why can't he just create another youtube account? I don't get why and how Machinima could know if he just made another Youtube account. I'm sure that if he did he would be protected under Youtube's privacy policy to keep his identity hidden and he could just say that the videos are people pretending to be/mocking/imitating him. Machinima can't simply invade Youtube accounts on a whim right? I mean, a separate account that isn't the one he gave them access to.

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

Also: there is, to quote Jay4randomnumbersherebecauseIcan'tbebotheredlookinguphisname, LITERALLY nothing worse on the Internet than YouTube videos of some prick staring into a webcam providing their completely inane opinion on something. It is the most self-indulgent bullshit, and (once again channeling Jay) and is LITERALLY LIKE THAT TIME EA WENT AND MADE PILLS OUT OF DEAD BABIES INSTEAD OF CHANGING THE MASS EFFECT 3 ENDING BECAUSE OUTRAGE GRRRR

I must say... I did laugh. but I have been toning down the 'literally' and the caps... unless it is point out that I am yelling something out. I use it far less often now.

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

Also: there is, to quote Jay4randomnumbersherebecauseIcan'tbebotheredlookinguphisname, LITERALLY nothing worse on the Internet than YouTube videos of some prick staring into a webcam providing their completely inane opinion on something. It is the most self-indulgent bullshit, and (once again channeling Jay) and is LITERALLY LIKE THAT TIME EA WENT AND MADE PILLS OUT OF DEAD BABIES INSTEAD OF CHANGING THE MASS EFFECT 3 ENDING BECAUSE OUTRAGE GRRRR

I must say... I did laugh. but I have been toning down the 'literally' and the caps... unless it is point out that I am yelling something out. I use it far less often now.

Machinima is still a thing? Wow.

I still don't "get" this. Why can't he just create another youtube account?... Machinima can't simply invade Youtube accounts on a whim right? I mean, a separate account that isn't the one he gave them access to.

@Turambar said:

@ZeForgotten said:

@Turambar said:

So here's a question. Exactly what was the contract, and what was the grounds for breaking it? It was never specified in the video, and all I can gather is it says this guy is stuck working for Machinima for life? That doesn't exactly sound enforceable as no court of law is going to go with it.

Contract is here. And on Page 3 is the thing he apparantly didn't read, I dunno.

Wow, man, that clause. That is pretty wow.

@SeriouslyNow said:

That contract is unenforceable. Contracts can't be in perpetuity. Contracts have renewal periods. Contracts can't apply 'throughout the universe'. Contracts have to honour the laws of the land. Either that's not the real contract or Machinima are not taking themselves seriously.

It depends on what law is governing this contract, though if it falls under California governance, contracts in perpetuity are fully legal as long as the conditions and intentions are clearly stated. In this case, they are. It may be a different story if it falls under British law (don't know its stance on contracts in perpetuity), but I'm going to take a guess and say Machinima made sure to have that base covered. That said, whether the scope of the clause can be enforced (all media on all platforms not yet invented lol what the fuck) is a wildly different story,

Contracts for creative content created by human beings cannot be in perpetuity. Contracts are always within a set period of governance (generally 15 years with an option to renew by default and decline within the last 5years to 12months though this does change depending which Union said creative industry oversees, in this case it might actually be SAG). In California the perpetuity clause only pertains to Wills, not creative contracts or work orders and in fact there are mainly laws against perpetuity not the other way around. I maintain that this contract is either poorly structured or being poorly represented because it actually is completely unenforceable in every aspect. It's more than likely designed to scare would be competitors from producing content without informing Machinima but otherwise holds no real power.

@SeriouslyNow said:

That contract is unenforceable. Contracts can't be in perpetuity. Contracts have renewal periods. Contracts can't apply 'throughout the universe'. Contracts have to honour the laws of the land. Either that's not the real contract or Machinima are not taking themselves seriously.

I was waiting for people to start pointing out the obvious.

More than likely this contract is just to scare people into submission. There's no way this would hold up in court, or at least no more than, "By signing this contract you allow said company possession of your mother's soul!" would hold up in court.

EDIT: Why, oh why, do I always end up posting the overly simplified version of what the person right before my post explained eloquently?

@mmzOne said:

@xyzygy said:

I still don't "get" this. Why can't he just create another youtube account?... Machinima can't simply invade Youtube accounts on a whim right? I mean, a separate account that isn't the one he gave them access to.

Yes they can. According to that contract he signed. "... and any future YouTube channels launched by Director during the Term of this agreement ...".

But what I'm asking is how would they know? Are YouTube and Machinima in cahoots or something? As far as I know, YouTube would welcome more subscribers and views - more ad revenue for them. I don't see why they would deny an (apparently) popular "director" or whatever they're called, and lose ad money to him. Especially now that he has more awareness.

Contracts for creative content created by human beings cannot be in perpetuity. Contracts are always within a set period of governance (generally 15 years with an option to renew by default and decline within the last 5years to 12months though this does change depending which Union said creative industry oversees, in this case it might actually be SAG). In California the perpetuity clause only pertains to Wills, not creative contracts or work orders and in fact there are mainly laws against perpetuity not the other way around. I maintain that this contract is either poorly structured or being poorly represented because it actually is completely unenforceable in every aspect. It's more than likely designed to scare would be competitors from producing content without informing Machinima but otherwise holds no real power.

@mmzOne said:

@xyzygy said:

I still don't "get" this. Why can't he just create another youtube account?... Machinima can't simply invade Youtube accounts on a whim right? I mean, a separate account that isn't the one he gave them access to.

Yes they can. According to that contract he signed. "... and any future YouTube channels launched by Director during the Term of this agreement ...".

Yep. This is pretty common amongst creative industries, and is the reason you'll see people leave big developers/publishers before announcing any personal projects.

@Paul_Is_Drunk said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

That contract is unenforceable. Contracts can't be in perpetuity. Contracts have renewal periods. Contracts can't apply 'throughout the universe'. Contracts have to honour the laws of the land. Either that's not the real contract or Machinima are not taking themselves seriously.

I was waiting for people to start pointing out the obvious.

More than likely this contract is just to scare people into submission. There's no way this would hold up in court, or at least no more than, "By signing this contract you allow said company possession of your mother's soul!" would hold up in court.

Okay... now I have to google search to see if someone does in fact own someones mothers soul... I'll be back.

.

..

...

Does soul food count? Eh... guess not. Well there is something that Google doesn't know... damn...

@Turambar said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

Contracts for creative content created by human beings cannot be in perpetuity. Contracts are always within a set period of governance (generally 15 years with an option to renew by default and decline within the last 5years to 12months though this does change depending which Union said creative industry oversees, in this case it might actually be SAG). In California the perpetuity clause only pertains to Wills, not creative contracts or work orders and in fact there are mainly laws against perpetuity not the other way around. I maintain that this contract is either poorly structured or being poorly represented because it actually is completely unenforceable in every aspect. It's more than likely designed to scare would be competitors from producing content without informing Machinima but otherwise holds no real power.

For the bolded, that restriction is not true. Though as I said previously, I highly doubt that the sheer scope of what the clause attempts to license would allow it any enforceability and would agree with your assertion that it is meant as a scare tactic.

That's a lease agreement between a Cable Company and the City of Coachella and probably falls under similar statutes (trusts and what have you). :/

I remember the days when Machinima was an actual website that was devoted to the art known as Machinima? It was a more carefree time, when anybody that watched red vs blue could post their own crappy machinima for like 40 people to see. Thank god I had back ups of those.

@Turambar said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

Contracts for creative content created by human beings cannot be in perpetuity. Contracts are always within a set period of governance (generally 15 years with an option to renew by default and decline within the last 5years to 12months though this does change depending which Union said creative industry oversees, in this case it might actually be SAG). In California the perpetuity clause only pertains to Wills, not creative contracts or work orders and in fact there are mainly laws against perpetuity not the other way around. I maintain that this contract is either poorly structured or being poorly represented because it actually is completely unenforceable in every aspect. It's more than likely designed to scare would be competitors from producing content without informing Machinima but otherwise holds no real power.

For the bolded, that restriction is not true. Though as I said previously, I highly doubt that the sheer scope of what the clause attempts to license would allow it any enforceability and would agree with your assertion that it is meant as a scare tactic.

That's a lease agreement. :/

@JeanLuc said:

I remember the days when Machinima was an actual website that was devoted to the art known as Machinima? It was a more carefree time, when anybody that watched red vs blue could post their own crappy machinima for like 40 people to see. Thank god I had back ups of those.

That shit was great. I watched far too much Freeman's Mind.

Sucks for the kid but as you said, you should always read the entire contract. Different is it for Terms of Agreements on other things though (but i always read them on forums i swear).

It sounds like everyone here clearly reads the EULA each time they install a game.

Reading contracts is on you. Unless you're a minor or sign under duress it's on you. Don't be retarded and sign whatever.

Watch the South Park Humancentipad episode.

It sounds like everyone here clearly reads the EULA each time they install a game.

Well, this could have never happened back in the USSR.

I'm sorry for that. It's his own fault anyway

On the other hand:

@Aetheldod said:

Are life long contracts even posible??? That sounds like blatant slavery to me ....

Agreed