Talk:Micro Star v. FormGen Inc./GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 20:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I did your last GAN, so lets clear this one out too. --PresN 20:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
"The case Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998) is a legal case"
- Don't need "case" twice, can just start "Micro Star v. FormGen Inc.""Game publisher FormGen counter-sued claiming"
- comma after sued"based on Duke Nukem 3D, and infringed their copyright."
- no comma"telling new tales of Duke's fabulous adventures.""
- period outside of the quote, since you're not quoting a full sentence. Same thing when you use this quote in the Appeals section"Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order"
-> "The court, therefore, reversed the district court's order" - awkward to start a sentence/paragraph with a conjunctive adverb- Link GT Interactive (either directly or to its redirect target Atari, Inc. (1993–present))
"is a clear violation of the Duke Nukem 3D copyright"
- italics"noncommercial in nature"
- you spelled it "non-commercial" earlier- As a general note, you mentioned that Lindstrom wrote in 2020, but don't have years for any other analysis; I feel like they would be helpful to have to indicate if they were close to the ruling or more recently, as the ruling is now 25 years old. For example, Burk's article saying that esports broadcasting may be illegal has a different context once you know it was written in 2012, not yesterday.
"Still, Zvi Rosen of the"
- "Still" reads oddly here; "Regardless" seems better- You have mixed date formats in the references; pick "day month, year" or "yyyy-mm-dd" (probably the first, since you have a lot of "month year" dates so they mix in better
Not too much here, it's a tidy little article. --PresN 20:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your recommendations. I spent some time to fix all the comments except for the date issue for several reasons. The 2020 date is the only one in the page because this case is still the determinative and relevant precedent on ownership of derivative works including mods, machinima and esports. The older reactions might make this precedent seem out of date but it is not; the legality has not changed while the industry has. That is why the legacy section ends with the comment that the industry does not generally enforce copyright and has actually embraced modders and YouTubers and broadcasters. There might be a way to make this more clear but I believe that adding a date for every reaction would only add cruft and without being informative. Jorahm (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's a good point, I was thinking in terms of demonstrating what the context was compared to when the articles were written as if it could change societally without other legal cases creating new precedent, but you're right that that's not how legal context works. Ok, passing this as-is, good job! --PresN 00:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your recommendations. I spent some time to fix all the comments except for the date issue for several reasons. The 2020 date is the only one in the page because this case is still the determinative and relevant precedent on ownership of derivative works including mods, machinima and esports. The older reactions might make this precedent seem out of date but it is not; the legality has not changed while the industry has. That is why the legacy section ends with the comment that the industry does not generally enforce copyright and has actually embraced modders and YouTubers and broadcasters. There might be a way to make this more clear but I believe that adding a date for every reaction would only add cruft and without being informative. Jorahm (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)