r/financialindependence • u/fidgit86 • 9d ago

What do you do that you earn six figures?

It seems like a lot of people make a lot of money and it seems like I’m missing out on something. So those of you that do, whats your occupation that pays so well?

15k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

View all comments

105

u/zstrebeck 9d ago

Video game lawyer

146

u/SoAnonymously 9d ago

You're a lawyer in a video game?

139

u/Ligmatologist 9d ago

Nah he just streams Ace Attorney games 24/7

3

u/jay_birdie20 9d ago

He just play lawyer simulator on twitch, gets pretty decent amount of tips.

54

u/zstrebeck 9d ago

Lawyer for video game (and board game) companies!

3

u/LostAbstract 9d ago

Sounds like a College Humor Google Search skit.

3

u/Autumn988 9d ago

Soo, a lot of IP and contracts? Or what else exactly do you handle?

(Paralegal who games a lot, you've got my attention)

6

u/zstrebeck 9d ago

Also company formation, terms and privacy policy, stuff like that.

1

u/Message_10 9d ago

I think he said “game lawyer in music videos.” Unclear.

2

u/Aramyth 9d ago

Do you mean IP lawyer?

7

u/motherinlawstongue 9d ago

That sounds interesting, I assume you do a lot of IP work. How did you get into that practice area?

3

u/zstrebeck 9d ago

Used to work in games (children's game animator), went to law school and started solo practice right after passing the bar. Love games and studied IP and similar subjects in school, so it was a perfect fit as a niche practice!

2

u/motherinlawstongue 9d ago

Cool, for some reason I was assuming you were in house with a larger production company. Hanging a shingle is a bold move, well done and congratulations on your success.

3

u/zstrebeck 9d ago

Yeah, it's been a wild ride! First couple years were quite lean, though. Five years to Coast FI (unless market returns are higher than average for the next few years).

2

u/kineloni 9d ago

So cool!

2

u/DarkKobold 9d ago

Hey, I have a question you might be able to answer. Someone makes an unlicensed translation hack of a game. That's technically IP infringement, as the original creator owns the game's "script" for a lack of a better word. This is pretty common in the video game world.

However, lets say the original creator (or IP holder) wants to use said translation for their own published release of the IP. Does the translator have any legal right to their unlicensed derivative work? Would the original IP holder be able to use it freely, due to owning the copyright?

1

u/zstrebeck 9d ago

Can't find any specific reference as to who actually owns the infringing translation - I don't believe the copyright holder owns it by virtue of it being a derivative work. Attorney Dana Schultz addresses it well here: https://www.quora.com/If-a-person-translates-a-copyrighted-work-with-whom-does-the-copyright-of-the-translation-rest

2

u/DarkKobold 9d ago

Awesome, thanks so much for this - I've wanted an answer to this for a while, but never found this page before.

1

u/musteatbrainz 9d ago

Curious to hear what /u/zstrebeck has to say, but my take that the original creator would not be entitled to use the infringing translation, so long as the translation had some creative/original elements that would afford it copyright protection (at least of its unique parts that were not already part of the original work). At the same time, the unlicensed translation could not be distributed by the translator since he/she does not have a license to the underlying work. So it's a kind of a stalemate, which is why IP owners typically commission translations.

1

u/zstrebeck 9d ago

Pretty much - it exists in a weird middle state

1

u/Various_Contact_5672 9d ago

There's surprisingly little US precedent on derivative works, something that comes up in the open source world fairly often.

What precedent there is, though, supports the position that you have two rightsholders in the derivative work, neither of which is able to distribute the work without the consent of each other.

Think of it this way:

Suppose you mixed two movies by different companies together into an unauthorized derivative work. Company A would not have a license to make and distribute copies of the works of Company B, or vice versa. The infringing nature of the derivative work does not convey a license under copyright law.

Changing the producer of the unauthorized derivative work to either Company A or B does not change the underlying facts of the situation, and legal distribution would still require one party to license their intellectual property to the other in order to permit legal distribution.

2

u/darren870 9d ago

Haha I remember you from GAF. Hope things are well!!

1

u/zstrebeck 9d ago

Hah, amazing. Yes, doing great. Hope you are as well

2

u/yoshkoshdosh 9d ago

Glock picking lawyer

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

1

u/zstrebeck 9d ago

You can try. But you won't win

1

u/panasonique 9d ago

Are you kidding?

1

u/SnooObjections8392 9d ago

For some reason, I immediately thought of Harvey Birdman

1

u/Amazing-Finger 9d ago

Good luck with Blizzard bro.

1

u/zstrebeck 8d ago

I'm small time

-2

u/1541drive 9d ago

Quick: Why is it ok for 3rd parties to make games for a system you don't have rights to?

4

u/zstrebeck 9d ago

Can you give an example, so I know for sure what you're talking about? And just because someone does it doesn't mean it's ok.

1

u/1541drive 9d ago

For example, if you created a new game console and plan to produce your own games. Can say EA come in and produce games for your system?

1

u/zstrebeck 9d ago

Probably not - most likely you would have a proprietary system that would require a license (like getting on PlayStation, for example)

2

u/1541drive 9d ago

Right. This was the premise for Activision making games for the Atari 2600. Not sure how that was possible.

1

u/Various_Contact_5672 9d ago

I'd respectfully disagree with that assertion, to a degree.

Given Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. and Sega v. Accolade (as well as the provisions for reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability under the DMCA), such actions are generally legal and considered "fair use" in the United States.

There are some caveats to this assertion, though, with regards to modern consoles like the PlayStation 4/5. Sony distributes a SDK that would not be covered under those provisions, and that SDK is used to create a combined derivative work. This would need to be cleanroomed (like the PS2 was), and the hardware interfaces used directly. This is effectively infeasible with the complexity of the modern gaming environment.

Additionally, there are prohibitions on distributing materials that circumvent technological measures that effectively control access to a work (other than for interoperability purposes). Care would need to be taken to ensure that you did not become a generic circumvention device for the platform (like a mod chip).

1

u/zstrebeck 8d ago

I guess I need to walk upstairs and grab my video game law casebook...

1

u/Various_Contact_5672 8d ago

I’m certainly not a lawyer, but I am in IP enforcement, and spend a /lot/ of time talking with in house council on the topic.

If I’m wrong, I’d be glad to know, but the impression I’ve been left with (and the industry seems to have accepted as a general precedent) is that those cases have not been superseded.

I’ll also be having a conversation internally if that is the case.

1

u/william_fontaine [insert humblebrags here] /r/FI's Official 🥑 Analyst 9d ago

I think it's safe with C64s by now

1

u/negot8or 9d ago

For the same reason it’s ok to write software for an OS you don’t own. As long as you don’t violate any restrictions (laws, contracts or, more recently, DRM controls), it’s the same as driving a car down a street owned by someone else.

1

u/1541drive 9d ago

https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/02/26/activisionaries-how-four-programmers-changed-the-game-industry-forever.aspx

1

u/negot8or 9d ago

Yes. I read that.

Activision actually screwed a lot of people in accepting that settlement. They created a licensing scenario on an otherwise open platform. Mistake. With far-reaching implications.

1

u/Various_Contact_5672 9d ago

That's the wrong question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed

The correct question is "why should a company be permitted to use the government to prevent others from making accessories, especially given that the US Constitution authorizes copyright for the purpose of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts?"

We don't permit car manufacturers to use the government to ban third party accessories. As a general rule, we don't do it for video game consoles either.

Copyright law is enforced by the government, not private companies, so any restrictive law needs to be justified, not the other way around.

To put it in an even simpler form, "You bought the console. You own it. Why shouldn't you be able to use it like other property you own, doing what you want with it?"

1

u/WikiSummarizerBot 9d ago

Everything which is not forbidden is allowed

"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" is a constitutional principle. It is the concept that any action can be taken by an individual or a body unless there is a law against it. It is also known in some situations as the "general power of competence" whereby the body or person being regulated is acknowledged to have competent judgement of their scope of action. The opposite is a principle whereby an action can only be taken if it is specifically allowed.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5