• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Farsi
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:12 AM)
Farsi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Linkstrikesback

And how do you propose they determine beforehand who, out of all the people on YouTube, are going to end up like PDP who end up spouting racist nonsense?

They can't, but they can always take the Nintendo route and handpick certain creators they want promoting their property.

Or they can just ban Lets plays for this certain game on youtube all together if they don't want to take the risk. It's hard for me to sympathize with them when PewDiePie was paying people to say death to all jews and wearing nazi outfits a few months ago and they still allowed the video to be up.
DigitalScrap
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:13 AM)
DigitalScrap's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sad Affleck

On the first bolded sentence: I know that people hate 'slippery slope' arguments but to me it is crystal clear that this will be abused to high heaven. "Something the actual creator deems unacceptable" is way too vague and can lead to some serious manipulation on the part of the publisher or developer. For instance, it would allow the actual creator to take down a video showing the game crashing. It would also allow the actual creator to effectively blacklist Youtubers and critics if he's upset about past coverage. One negative comment during a Let's Play could be enough to take down the whole thing. I am not at all comfortable with giving developers and publishers that kind of power.

On the second bolded word: These piggybackers make content that can literally make or break a game. Many of them are extremely talented, work very hard to produce quality content at a regular basis and deserve their success.

I get that. But... people can learn to write again.

If someone made a video speaking about the things you mentioned WITHOUT broadcasting the actual content that they don't own, then they are fine.

This is no different than me making a YouTube video about a football game - I cannot legally broadcast the footage of the football game without the "explicit" permission of the NFL. Same thing applies here. Same thing applies if I want to have a critique of a movie - I can't just broadcast whatever parts of the movie content I want during my critique. I'm not sure why people like to think that game companies don't have the same rights as these others.
Alienfan
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:16 AM)
Alienfan's Avatar

Originally Posted by DigitalScrap

I get that. But... people can learn to write again.

If someone made a video speaking about the things you mentioned WITHOUT broadcasting the actual content that they don't own, then they are fine.

This is no different than me making a YouTube video about a football game - I cannot legally broadcast the footage of the football game without the "explicit" permission of the NFL. Same thing applies here. Same thing applies if I want to have a critique of a movie - I can't just broadcast whatever parts of the movie content I want during my critique. I'm not sure why people like to think that game companies don't have the same rights as these others.

Because the argument is (for most games) you're making the entertainment by playing the game. The developers makes the canvas and the tools, the YouTuber is the painter so to speak. It's not quite the same ripping clips from a film or football game that you had no part in making and talking over it
DigitalScrap
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:17 AM)
DigitalScrap's Avatar

Originally Posted by Alienfan

Because the argument is (for most games) you're making the entertainment by playing the game. The developers makes the canvas and the tools, the YouTuber is the painter so to speak.

That may be the argument, but it isn't true. Reality is that a game isn't a "canvas".
SeanTSC
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:21 AM)
SeanTSC's Avatar
I'll always support taking away platforms from racist garbage and creators are well within their rights with taking down Let's Plays. Racism and Hate need to have consequences.
Alienfan
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:24 AM)
Alienfan's Avatar

Originally Posted by DigitalScrap

That may be the argument, but it isn't true. Reality is that a game isn't a "canvas".

What about PUBG? That game is very much driven by its gameplay and events created by its players, do you not think a player should be able to monetise the footage they captured and were apart of?
JoeM86
(09-13-2017, 08:28 AM)
JoeM86's Avatar

Originally Posted by Farsi

They can't, but they can always take the Nintendo route and handpick certain creators they want promoting their property.

To be fair, Nintendo don't block creators from posting things or issue takedown notices. It's just monetisation
Suzushiiro
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:29 AM)

Originally Posted by Boke1879

Or maybe dude just doesn't want his video associated with a person that has done one too many fucked up things. It's literally that simple.

I'm well aware of that, thank you very much. The whole point of my posts here were

A) While they're absolutely within their rights to DMCA him by the letter of the law, the action is a blatant violation of the spirit of copyright law as most of the modern non-corporate internet (particularly those who make/consume video game-related content on Twitch/Youtube) has decided to interpret it over the years

B) The decision to DMCA the videos and publicly announce they were doing so is fucking stupid, as the backlash to them will almost certainly cause more harm than good and conversely more good than harm to Pewdiepie by making him a victim even in the eyes of people who attacked him for the other shit he's done, whereas doing nothing would neither harm them nor help Pewdiepie
Trigonometrize.
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:30 AM)
Trigonometrize.'s Avatar
I really don't like DMCA as it pertains to video games, but it's reality that IP holders hold all the cards. Fair use, even if it would be in favor of let's players, is not much help if no one wants to go to court on this bit everyone would rather just cooperate. Or at least generally cooperate.

Originally Posted by SeanTSC

I'll always support taking away platforms from racist garbage and creators are well within their rights with taking down Let's Plays. Racism and Hate need to have consequences.

The problem is that there are other avenues that may or may not have been exhausted. That is where the debate should fall at this point IMO. The idea that CS is either doing nothing to combat racism or must be DMCAing people is clearly a false dilemma.
tmarg
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:31 AM)
tmarg's Avatar

Originally Posted by Alienfan

What about PUBG? That game is very much driven by its gameplay and events created by its players, do you not think a player should be able to monetise the footage they captured and were apart of?

Legally no, they don't have a right to do that. Publishers allow them to do it, because it helps sales, but they could choose to stop at any time, for any reason. See, for example, Nintendo's YouTube policy.
blubb
Junior Member
(09-13-2017, 08:31 AM)

Originally Posted by dottme

If I'm reading the opening correctly:
- when I buying a game digitally, I'm just buying a license to play the game from Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft...
- if they want, they can decide they don't like me and end the license just like this?

There is some missing details or this is really frightening.

Like some said, you read it wrong. That is not part of the OP. But to try to get it on topic from my understanding:
Even if you buy a game physically, you only buy a non commercial license to play the game, or something like that. You don't own the game.

Example movies: You buy a movie on DVD, Blu-ray or digitally, you buy a license to watch it and some means to do so. It extends to watch it with family and friends. But you do not have a license to broadcast it or show it to others for money (cinema style).

So you don't generally get a license to broadcast a game you buy. Many companies just let you for good publicity.
That commercial streaming/broadcasting is the case here.

But companies can also revoke your license to play a game. Like banning you from an online game. But will only do so if you broke TOS or EULA. You should read those.

Let's see how wrong I am
plasmawave
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:32 AM)
plasmawave's Avatar
DMCAWatch.
Cuningas de Häme
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:33 AM)
Cuningas de Häme's Avatar

Originally Posted by N3DS

IIRC Nintendo has already been doing this. And angry Joe was pretty upset about it.

Angry Joe is a thug. He wants to get ALL the moneys. Nintendo doesn't want people to openly shit on them all the time AND get lots of money from it too.


Originally Posted by JoeM86

To be fair, Nintendo don't block creators from posting things or issue takedown notices. It's just monetisation

Like this guy says. You can make Nintendo videos, just don't think that you can monetize it like you want.

I know that people like to shit on Nintendo, but Nintendo doesn't need to help you get money while you do that.


EDIT. And in EU, if you buy a game, it is yours. There has been multiple cases of this already. Good thing we have people that are not completely bending in front of corporations to get those sweet moneyshots high up in their bottomless bottoms.

It is different thing if you you something wrong with the game you bought. Like being a useless cheating scumbag.
Squire
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:35 AM)
Squire's Avatar
Yeah, I had a real "Oh huh" moment listening to Waypoint Radio yesterday when they mentioned the Persona 5 streaming/upload situation. Had forgotten all about that.

Devs and pubs can totally do this. For stuff like the PDP situation, I fully support it.
jman2050
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:36 AM)
jman2050's Avatar

Originally Posted by Alienfan

What about PUBG? That game is very much driven by its gameplay and events created by its players, do you not think a player should be able to monetise the footage they captured and were apart of?

The way I understand it is this falls under "public performance", which is a right explicitly granted to the holder of the property in question. Basically, the act of playing a video game in a public setting (ie on Youtube or Twitch) is treated exactly the same way under the law as the act of performing a play or performing a piece of music. From there the question of fair use comes into play regarding how much footage is used, the nature of whatever commentary is played over the footage, etc. but no, simply playing a game is never considered a work in its own right.
Kilrogg
paid requisite penance
(09-13-2017, 08:39 AM)
Kilrogg's Avatar

Originally Posted by Duckhuntdog

What not see what an actual copyright attorney has to say about this?

Yeah, who to believe? I've watched Leonard French's videos before, he seems very knowledgeable, and when in doubt, I'll always side with the guy who's specialized, i.e. a copyright attorney like Leonard French in this case. And he's arguing that there's little legal claim for this particular DMCA takedown.
tmarg
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:40 AM)
tmarg's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kilrogg

Yeah, who to believe? I've watched Leonard French's videos before, he seems very knowledgeable, and when in doubt, I'll always side with the guy who's specialized, i.e. a copyright attorney like Leonard French in this case. And he's arguing that there's little legal claim for this particular DMCA takedown.

The article in the OP is also written by a copyright attorney.
IrishNinja
(09-13-2017, 08:44 AM)
IrishNinja's Avatar
good, fuck pewdeepie

also "In my role as a video game attorney" is a hell of a sentence

Originally Posted by JusDoIt

Not even sure why this is a debate. PewDiePie is using their intellectual property to make content, which he then generates revenue from.

They don't want their property affiliated with the content he makes.

Case closed.

^this
FinalStageBoss
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:45 AM)
Of course they can.


I wouldn't want my game on a racist dickbag's channel either tbh.
Blackage
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:45 AM)
Blackage's Avatar

Originally Posted by Cuningas de Häme

Angry Joe is a thug. He wants to get ALL the moneys. Nintendo doesn't want people to openly shit on them all the time AND get lots of money from it too.




Like this guy says. You can make Nintendo videos, just don't think that you can monetize it like you want.

I know that people like to shit on Nintendo, but Nintendo doesn't need to help you get money while you do that.


EDIT. And in EU, if you buy a game, it is yours. There has been multiple cases of this already. Good thing we have people that are not completely bending in front of corporations to get those sweet moneyshots high up in their bottomless bottoms.

It is different thing if you you something wrong with the game you bought. Like being a useless cheating scumbag.

Angry Joe is a thug? Word? That's one I had not heard before.
SomedayTheFire
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:45 AM)
SomedayTheFire's Avatar
Absolutely no problem with this. Making money off someone else's IP isn't a right, it's a privilege.
KHlover
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:46 AM)

Originally Posted by Kilrogg

Yeah, who to believe? I've watched Leonard French's videos before, he seems very knowledgeable, and when in doubt, I'll always side with the guy who's specialized, i.e. a copyright attorney like Leonard French in this case. And he's arguing that there's little legal claim for this particular DMCA takedown.

Ask five different attorneys and you'll get six different answers.
zeelman
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:47 AM)
zeelman's Avatar
Do we even know if he's making money from those particular videos at this point?
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:50 AM)

Originally Posted by KSweeley

According to this article, DMCA takedowns targeting specific people are fully legal and that absolutely no reasoning is required for a DMCA takedown: https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/12/16...ca-legal-abuse

That's why I never liked the DMCA - its a poorly written law and prone to abuse.
Nanashrew
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:51 AM)
Got no issue with people denying racists a platform.
tmarg
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:53 AM)
tmarg's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

That's why I never liked the DMCA - its a poorly written law and prone to abuse.

It is, but that has nothing to do with this situation since, as the article explains, taking down a LP is not an abuse.
Bluth54
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:54 AM)
Bluth54's Avatar

Originally Posted by zeelman

Do we even know if he's making money from those particular videos at this point?

He probably makes little to nothing on the Firewatch video anymore. It also includes any future games from this developer.
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:54 AM)

Originally Posted by tmarg

It is, but that has nothing to do with this situation since, as the article explains, taking down a LP is not an abuse.

That is up to debate - there is no solid consensus from the legal experts and it hasn't been tested in court properly.
DigitalScrap
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:56 AM)
DigitalScrap's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nanashrew

Got no issue with people denying racists a platform.

This. The thousands and thousands of let's plays online mean that the DMCA is not being outright abused all the time - sure there have been some questionable cases, but if a content owner wants to separate themselves from an asshole, I think it is a justifiable avenue to pursue, especially since YouTube/Twitch seem to turn a blind eye as long as money is coming in.

I wonder about those who think using the DMCA to stop obvious racist fucks from using content for profit is wrong and somehow a violation of imaginary rights - are they sympathizers? Or just misinformed? I wonder.
LinkSlayer64
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:57 AM)
LinkSlayer64's Avatar
Pewds is a racist asshole - fuck him. and maybe one day he'll clean up his act and make the proper amends necessary, but right now he's an asshole and someone needs to shove some fucking soap down his mouth - now that I have hopefully made it utterly clear my disdain for him;

Part of what's wrong with the DMCA and how it gets abused nowadays directly related to the fact you need not provide a single reason. The burden of proof lies on the accused, not the accuser, which is bullshit.
The DMCA is a broken mess. Copyright in general is a broken mess. Fuck you Disney, it's all your damn fault. And fuck Youtube too, they help encourage this shit.

So I don't know how to feel about this particular action with the fight to change what is considered fair use and the possibility that Jim Sterling posed about how if Pew ever went to court he could fuck it up for every single decent person trying to make a living this way.

edit - another thing, why isn't pewds' account taken down? With issues like these, especially the Nazi imagery thing which was specfically on youtube, doesn't it violate youtube's terms of service? (oh wait it's because he makes them a fuck ton of money)
Zeouterlimits
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:57 AM)
Zeouterlimits's Avatar
When you think about it, it can seem really weird that we allow people to upload entire games with performance over it.
Especially for more straight forward narrative focused games.
We don't allow that for movies etc.
The ๖ۜBronx
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:58 AM)
The ๖ۜBronx's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nanashrew

Got no issue with people denying racists a platform.

This.

If "fucking n*****" is the kind of phrase that just 'slips out' perhaps you have no business being in a position of influence over young people.
LinkSlayer64
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:59 AM)
LinkSlayer64's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zeouterlimits

When you think about it, it can seem really weird that we allow people to upload entire games with performance over it.
Especially for more straight forward narrative focused games.
We don't allow that for movies etc.

The difference is gameplay more often than not allows for a degree of difference in it's performance, making it transformative. However, no true legal precedent has been set yet.
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:01 AM)

Originally Posted by DigitalScrap

I wonder about those who think using the DMCA to stop obvious racist fucks from using content for profit is wrong and somehow a violation of imaginary rights - are they sympathizers? Or just misinformed? I wonder.

Neither, my optics are on the bigger impacts on the landscape of digital copyrights that go beyond youtuber gamers. Whatever precedents are set here will have far reaching effects on the rest of the internet. DMCA is far bigger than just a bunch of lets plays.
Skittles
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:03 AM)
Skittles's Avatar

Originally Posted by LinkSlayer64

The difference is gameplay more often than not allows for a degree of difference in it's performance, making it transformative. However, no true legal precedent has been set yet.

That doesn't make it transformative though. This is like saying that performing someone else's song live makes it transformative. Won't hold up in court and gamers have a lot to lose by taking it there
Squire
Banned
(09-13-2017, 09:03 AM)
Squire's Avatar

Originally Posted by zeelman

Do we even know if he's making money from those particular videos at this point?

It doesn't matter. He dorsn't deserve the opportunity to either way.
Mael
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:03 AM)
Nobody believed me when I claimed that LP didn't have any kind of protection and were merely tolerated.

Also the whole issue is broadcasting.
It's kinda like a play written by someone 10 years ago.
If you don't have the writer's permission you'll lose your right to play your interpretation of the play in public.
Same thing here.

We'll get to a point where some idiot like PDP (probably PDP) will fuck this up so much it'll go to court and that's when shit will hit the fan.

Also fuck gamers who think that they're getting singled out and couldn't shut up fast enough when the rest of youtube got hit with content ID shenanigans but NOW that games are the target it's somehow important.
Bluth54
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:03 AM)
Bluth54's Avatar
It doesn't surprise me that LetsPlays aren't fair use, it's basically Mystery Science Theater 3000 in videogame form and they had to get the rights to show movies that weren't in the public domain.

Of course I don't know how the FAQ on the Firewatch site saying streaming the game is fine would affect things. I doubt Pewdiepie will actually sue the Firewatch developers so it likely wont end up in court.
DigitalScrap
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:04 AM)
DigitalScrap's Avatar

Originally Posted by LinkSlayer64

The difference is gameplay more often than not allows for a degree of difference in it's performance, making it transformative. However, no true legal precedent has been set yet.

And the first time a "video game attorney" argues this in court, he will lose, and no precedent will be set. This "performance art" argument was born on forums and is absolute bullshit.
FyreWulff
I Spit Hot Fyre
(09-13-2017, 09:04 AM)

Originally Posted by spineduke

That is up to debate - there is no solid consensus from the legal experts and it hasn't been tested in court properly.

But we already have existing examples. Book supplements do not contain the original book, and stuff like MST3K license the movie they are running their comedy skit over.

In cases where MST3K-likes don't license the movie, they give you the audio commentary on it's own and it's up to you to sync it. They're not distributing (and hence) copying the original work.

The existing reviews industry also do not have the entire movie play, or contain the entire book.


Also re:OP no shit, copyright holders have always been able to pick and choose who can legally use their material.

Originally Posted by LinkSlayer64

The difference is gameplay more often than not allows for a degree of difference in it's performance, making it transformative. However, no true legal precedent has been set yet.

Gameplay isn't copyrightable. It'd be like being able to copyright pressing play to start a movie and pressing pause to stop it. If you create something in the game with your inputs, it'd be considered a derivative work, not transformative, because the definition of transformative is specifically an unexpected use of the material, if you do things the game .. does, you're not doing anything unexpected.
LinkSlayer64
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:04 AM)
LinkSlayer64's Avatar

Originally Posted by Skittles

That doesn't make it transformative though. This is like saying that performing someone else's song live makes it transformative. Won't hold up in court and gamers have a lot to lose by taking it there

Well, that's what comes to argument, like I said, there is no precedent.
Steroyd
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:05 AM)
Steroyd's Avatar
We already know you don't need a reason to DMCA someone, that's why Digital Homicide DMCA'ing Jim Sterling for saying thing they didn't like, it's why Alex Maur DMCA'ing over 100 Youtubers for playing or critiquing a game she didn't own the music to, it's why Campo Santo is DMCA'ing PDP for saying thing he didn't like with the lovely added bonus of it being over a game they're not the developers of.

Firewatch has every right to dissociate themselves from PewdiePie because of this, that doesn't mean this isn't an abuse of the DMCA.
tmarg
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:05 AM)
tmarg's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

That is up to debate - there is no solid consensus from the legal experts and it hasn't been tested in court properly.

There is a fairly solid consensus. There is a reason why Google and Amazon, possessing between them the finest lawyers money can buy, have never dared to contest copyright claims from even the smallest developers. It's not in anyone's best interest to rock the boat with an actual court case, because streaming and video are generally beneficial for everyone involved, but people who actually understand what fair use is are in general agreement that LPs aren't it.
Moosichu
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:06 AM)
Moosichu's Avatar
DMCA takedowns can be abused, this is not what this is.

DMCA is open to abuse in that it can be used to take down content which never infringed any copyright, with no repercussions to the entities filing takedowns illegitimately.

Santo Campo own the copyright to their own work, and Pewdiepie's usage of their copyrighted content isn't fair use. When you own the copyright to something you do have the power to arbitrarily control what is done with it for any reason. That isn't abuse, that is the law functioning exactly as intended.

Whether the law should be like that is another debate, but this is the current situation. (In my opinion, the DMCA has a lot of problems and should be abolished for reasons beyond this thread.)


Originally Posted by Steroyd

We already know you don't need a reason to DMCA someone, that's why Digital Homicide DMCA'ing Jim Sterling for saying thing they didn't like, it's why Alex Maur DMCA'ing over 100 Youtubers for playing or critiquing a game she didn't own the music to, it's why Campo Santo is DMCA'ing PDP for saying thing he didn't like with the lovely added bonus of it being over a game they're not the developers of.

Firewatch has every right to dissociate themselves from PewdiePie because of this, that doesn't mean this isn't an abuse of the DMCA.

Digital Homicide were abusing DMCA as Jim's usage of their content for short impression videos with critique was fair use.

Pewdiepie's usage of Campo Santo's game in a let's play is not fair use.

Copyright says nothing about what reasons you are allowed to have for doing certain things with you copyrighted work. It simply dictates under what circumstances another piece of work is considered derivative and not fair use.

Copyright holders can arbitrarily dictate what happens to derivative works, and do not need to provide reasons for doing so. This is how the law is designed to work (and how it should work IMO.)
plufim
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:07 AM)

Originally Posted by Suzushiiro

Beyond that, I think the worst thing about this particular use of the DMCA is that they took an incident where most gaming Youtubers were seemingly about to turn on Pewdiepie at full force (since the Adpocalypse earlier this year was generally seen as being caused by the article about him and most people figured this would just make it worse) and threw a wrench in it all by making a lot of Youtubers want/need to somewhat defend PDP, as while they were pissed at him potentially fucking it up for all of them even more if there's one thing that people who make their living Youtube-ing about games hate more than anything else it's blatant violation of what most of them consider to be the definition of fair use rights.

Horseshit. Same youtubers fell over themselves to defend him last time. And JonTron. This is not something they do grudgingly.

This was their excuse to defend, last time it was "the media wants to kill youtube". They'd have taken any reason they could find.
Durante
Come on down to Durante's drivethru PC port fixes. 15 minutes or less. Yelp: ★★★★★

Fixed Souls, Deadly Premonition, Lightning Returns, Umihara Kawase, Symphonia, Little King's Story, PhD, likes mimosas.
(09-13-2017, 09:07 AM)
Durante's Avatar
To be crystal clear here: that is just one of many massive issues with the DMCA and why it needs to be abolished.
Messofanego
Banned
(09-13-2017, 09:07 AM)

Originally Posted by zeelman

Do we even know if he's making money from those particular videos at this point?

Not anymore since those videos are not on the channel anymore to be viewed publicly.
FyreWulff
I Spit Hot Fyre
(09-13-2017, 09:08 AM)

Originally Posted by Moosichu

DMCA takedowns can be abused, this is not what this is.

DMCA is open to abuse in that it can be used to take down content which never infringed any copyright, with no repercussions to the entities filing takedowns illegitimately.

Santo Campo own the copyright to their own work, and Pewdiepie's usage of their copyrighted content isn't fair use. When you own the copyright to something you do have the power to arbitrarily control what is done with it for any reason. That isn't abuse, that is the law functioning exactly as intended.

Whether the law should be like that is another debate, but this is the current situation.

This. DMCA is abuse when it's something taking things down blindly when they don't own it or other similar situations.

What DMCA abuse is NOT is someone that wholly owns the copyright enforcing it. The DMCA isn't even technically needed in this situation, however, it's the process Google uses when making copyright claims on content they host, because it's intentionally designed to avoid either side spinning up a court case.

Even if the DMCA didn't exist, Google would probably just make a similar system.
LinkSlayer64
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:09 AM)
LinkSlayer64's Avatar

Originally Posted by tmarg

There is a fairly solid consensus. There is a reason why Google and Amazon, possessing between them the finest lawyers money can buy, have never dared to contest copyright claims from even the smallest developers. It's not in anyone's best interest to rock the boat with an actual court case, because streaming and video are generally beneficial for everyone involved, but people who actually understand what fair use is are in general agreement that LPs aren't it.

Youtube and Amazon don't argue it because they get paid either way, and if they are involved in changing the law companies will only have a distaste for them.
Where is the concensus? (seriously, I'd like to point to it in the future and be done and on with my life sooner if there is one)

Thread Tools