Has anyone been banned for using Perform yet?

[Hestzhyen]

The feature is neat and has a lot of potential but it's hampered by SE's over-zealous legal restrictions on it. They're more interested in covering their asses than allowing player expression. What's even sadder is that they're justified in taking that stance, considering how lawsuit-happy media rights owners can be. Those entities frequently take scorched-earth approaches to their claims, catching up everyone they think they can nail for damages. Even if SE was found to be not liable in court they'd spend thousands of dollars to get that verdict. And it would be appealed at every level, bleeding millions unless they just threw in the towel and agreed to settle with no admission of wrong-doing.

It's a problem part of a larger issue surrounding copyright ownership and enforcement. SE seems to take the same dim view of acceptable fair-use cases that other media rights owners do. And we're the ones who suffer most for it.

[KingMeteo]

And we're the ones who suffer most for it.

haha suffering? Just don't post online, why is that ruining the whole thing?
You can still play whatever you like IN GAME.
Is it only good if you can upload it to the internet so you can get moar thumbs up?

I like using it in game to play for myself. I play guitar IRL, I just play for me not to upload to Utube.

Just have fun.
I know this is a hard concept but, You don't need to post everything you do.

[Hestzhyen]

Just have fun.
I know this is a hard concept but, You don't need to post everything you do.

What works for you is fine, but the majority of people who perform and play want to be heard. For them it's essential that they share the cool things they're able to do to their friends and the world at large. It's a form of self-expression that's been around for far, far longer than we've even had civilization as we know it.

For what it's worth I don't upload or share things myself. But I like seeing what other people do and how creative they can be. SE's in the right here, but it still sucks for us.

[KaivaC]

What works for you is fine, but the majority of people who perform and play want to be heard. For them it's essential that they share the cool things they're able to do to their friends and the world at large. It's a form of self-expression that's been around for far, far longer than we've even had civilization as we know it.

For what it's worth I don't upload or share things myself. But I like seeing what other people do and how creative they can be. SE's in the right here, but it still sucks for us.

Majority, huh? You, uh...you have the evidence for that claim, dear Miqo'te?

[DeaconMoore]

SE's stance does seem odd. If it was applied elsewhere you'd see all the musical instrument manufacturers sued out of business simply because people played an unoriginal piece using their equipment they supplied. I dare say the music teachers would all be in jail too for teaching people to play another persons copyrighted work.

Makes me wonder what a bleak place the land of the rising sun must be. I suppose it's no wonder I hear about them facing a population crash in the future.

[Freyt]

Go back to my image in page 3. You have

A) Yoshida's explicitly mentioning XIV only.

B) Your quote already says, and I bold: " You may record and share your performance of the FINAL FANTASY XIV original score excluding the songs entitled “Answers”, “Dragonsong” and “Revolutions” or original songs and/or melodiesusing the performance actions in accordance with this Agreement."

Gotta admit when I've missed something. Doesn't happen often, but the truth is the truth. I DO believe there is a misunderstanding, but what you pointed to in the agreement does limit that possibility. I haven't seen/heard Yoshida saying that. Maybe he did, but unless he said "not any other Final Fantasy titles" or something like that, I don't think I would be convinced. The agreement states both "you may not"s and "you may"s, and other Final Fantasy or Square Enix titles aren't listed in either, but it again is implied when the "may not" describes third parties, of which Square is not a third party.

I'm sure you believe whole heartedly that you're right, and I don't yet believe that I am/was wrong, but if it's any consolation I'm not as confident as I was before.

[Claviusnex]

Copyright laws are based on individual countries so for example a copyright for Japan is only enforceable in Japan and a copyright in the US is only enforceable in the US. In the US the "Fair use" sections of copyright law will frequently result in the legal use of copyrighted material without the owners permission and against their desire. What really appears to be going on in this case is the licensing agreement which comes under contract law. The Material Usage License is what governs the how an entity may use SE copyrighted material when it is for other than those that come under the "Fair use" provisions of copyright law. I think SE is somewhat skirting the legal process usually used to decide these types of matters (i.e. the court system) by claiming copyright infringement to YouTube even when it is clear there is no infringement nor violation of the license. I also feel their ability to get away with it is due somewhat to the DCMA making hosting companies reluctant to fight back and making it hard for individuals to push back as well. The only way I see for the users having their videos removed to handle this is to appeal to YouTube and request the specific information as to what SE is claiming to be infringed and where that is stated in the license agreement. With that a person should be able to prove that SE is wrong or modify their video to conform.