• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

jman2050
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:09 AM)
jman2050's Avatar

Originally Posted by LinkSlayer64

Well, that's what comes to argument, like I said, there is no precedent.

Courts will use the existing precedence that applies to literally every other audiovisual medium out there and it won't even be hard to do so.

This grand idea that playing video games constitutes some sort of unique form of performance art is a delusional fantasy. The law simply doesn't work that way.
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:11 AM)

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.

You have a few examples in this very thread that go up against each other, and I can link you to more professional opinions that say otherwise. I think having a court clarify the nature of Let's Plays can be for the inherent good in the end - maybe standardize the process and establish the boundaries for all parties concerned. It would definitely avoid a mess like this, and perhaps give copyright holders proper tools to take down content that doesn't line up with their own values. In the end - I'm someone who wants to see that DMCA doesn't increase from its original scope because its a shitty law. We need better tools than that to moderate the internet.
Last edited by spineduke; 09-13-2017 at 08:13 AM.
Nanashrew
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:13 AM)
Nanashrew's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

You have a few examples in this very thread that go up against each other, and I can link you to more professional opinions that say otherwise. I think having a court clarify the nature of Let's Plays can be for the inherent good in the end - maybe standardize the process and establish the boundaries for all parties concerned. It would definitely avoid a mess like this, and perhaps give copyright holders proper tools to take down content that doesn't line up with their own values.

At the same time that's a gigantic risk that could jeopardize the business YouTubers created.
fresquito
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:15 AM)
fresquito's Avatar

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.

Laws can be abusive, you know...
Jintor
Lit himself on fire to get
a mod to tag him
(09-13-2017, 08:15 AM)
Jintor's Avatar

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.

This has always been the legal case, yes
Moosichu
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:16 AM)
Moosichu's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

You have a few examples in this very thread that go up against each other, and I can link you to more professional opinions that say otherwise. I think having a court clarify the nature of Let's Plays can be for the inherent good in the end - maybe standardize the process and establish the boundaries for all parties concerned. It would definitely avoid a mess like this, and perhaps give copyright holders proper tools to take down content that doesn't line up with their own values. In the end - I'm someone who wants to see that DMCA doesn't increase from its original scope because its a shitty law. We need better tools than that to moderate the internet.

Copyright law says nothing about values - you either own the copyright to something, and can do anything you damn please with it, including suing and taking down infringing works (or not) for any reason at any time - or you don't own the copyright to something and you have no control over it at all.
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:16 AM)

Originally Posted by Nanashrew

At the same time that's a gigantic risk that could jeopardize the business YouTubers created.

I think the businesses all see the value in user content - creating some rules that protect businesses and protect content creators equally could be of value to everyone and ensure that we don't let extremists and racists proliferate the platform.

Originally Posted by Moosichu

Copyright law says nothing about values

I agree with you - but that's not what the DMCA was originally designed for.
Mael
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:17 AM)

Originally Posted by Nanashrew

At the same time that's a gigantic risk that could jeopardize the business YouTubers created.

The whole automated system was Youtube's compromise to shield its business from IP owners not being too keen on people pilfering their IPs for ad money.
If it's no longer satisfactory you can be sure that Youtube will try to put a system in place that benefit itself.
By putting itself in the middle instead of going through a lengthy court case, youtube managed to be the defacto standard everyone will follow even unconsciously.
It was a great play on their part.
Too bad for youtubers though.

Originally Posted by Jintor

This has always been the legal case, yes

Pretty sure that in the EU, if you buy something it's yours.
Publishers need to change their language to be more like renting or licensing.
DigitalScrap
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:18 AM)
DigitalScrap's Avatar

Originally Posted by jman2050

This grand idea that playing video games constitutes some sort of unique form of performance art is a delusional fantasy. The law simply doesn't work that way.

It's really amazing that people have really bought into this "playing a game as performance art" narrative.
Moosichu
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:18 AM)
Moosichu's Avatar

Originally Posted by fresquito

Laws can be abusive, you know...

That is true, but I don't believe the intent behind copyright law is to be abusive. It can be abused, but I don't think that is intent behind it. (Unless you count Disney's continued lobbying to extend copyright to become near indefinite.)

If you have any sources saying otherwise I would really appreciate it.
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:19 AM)

Originally Posted by Moosichu

That is true, but I don't believe the intent behind copyright law is to be abusive. It can be abused, but I don't think that is intent behind it. (Unless you count Disney's continued lobbying to extend copyright to become near indefinite.)

If you have any sources saying otherwise I would really appreciate it.

https://lumendatabase.org/blog_entries/797

Lumen are the people who catalog DMCA takedowns on Google and are in a great position to talk about DMCA abuse.

Originally Posted by DigitalScrap

It's really amazing that people have really bought into this "playing a game as performance art" narrative.

Tell me how would you categorize Youtubers - what is it that they do?
Last edited by spineduke; 09-13-2017 at 08:21 AM.
Mael
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:19 AM)

Originally Posted by DigitalScrap

It's really amazing that people have really bought into this "playing a game a performance art" narrative.

It's the same BS like the old "If I keep the rom only for 24hrs it's not piracy" nonsense.
Moosichu
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:22 AM)
Moosichu's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

https://lumendatabase.org/blog_entries/797

Lumen are the people who catalog DMCA takedowns on Google and are in a great position to talk about DMCA abuse.

I'm talking about how the law was intended, not how it was used. I think the DMCA is a piece of garbage that is abused to high heaven.

The question was more about whether it was originally intended as a deliberately abusive law.
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:25 AM)

Originally Posted by Moosichu

I'm talking about how the law was intended, not how it was used. I think the DMCA is a piece of garbage that is abused to high heaven.

The question was more about whether it was originally intended as a deliberately abusive law.

Ah, my bad. There's no way to determine that, and no law is truly written with abuse in mind. If the DMCA was written at the behest of big businesses, it would be in their interests to use as broad language as possible.
DeadManWalking
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:25 AM)
DeadManWalking's Avatar

Originally Posted by Seesaw15

That's the point. The creator doesn't want to be associated with a guy who says racial slurs.

The point is that you cant just DMCA video just because you don't like the guy. He can easily go to court and win.
Its amazing how many of you guys are ok with giving away fair use, just because of somone said naughty word.
Theres a great video about fair use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ZmVheuxpo
Nanashrew
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:28 AM)
Nanashrew's Avatar

Originally Posted by DeadManWalking

The point is that you cant just DMCA video just because you don't like the guy. He can easily go to court and win.
Its amazing how many of you guys are ok with giving away fair use, just because of somone said naughty word.
Theres a great video about fair use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ZmVheuxpo

For let's plays to be fair use there must be legal precedent. People who believe they are doing things that are fair use have lost in court by the thousands because they thought they were within fair use.
Bluth54
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:31 AM)
Bluth54's Avatar

Originally Posted by DeadManWalking

The point is that you cant just DMCA video just because you don't like the guy. He can easily go to court and win.
Its amazing how many of you guys are ok with giving away fair use, just because of somone said naughty word.
Theres a great video about fair use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ZmVheuxpo

I seriously doubt that just playing a game with commentary would be considered fair use by a court but you never know.
MHWilliams
(09-13-2017, 08:31 AM)
MHWilliams's Avatar

Originally Posted by Duckhuntdog

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

The article in question was written by an attorney who deals in copyright.

Mona Ibrahim is a Senior Associate at Interactive Entertainment Law Group

Mona Ibrahim has spent over half a decade representing and educating independent game developers in a broad range of legal matters, with a particular emphasis on intellectual property and asset licensing. Prior to opening her own firm in 2010, Mona successfully managed the trademark practice of Imua Legal Advisors in Seattle, WA. During her years of private practice she worked closely with new independent developers from company inception to game launch. She has successfully represented independent developers in a range of transactions, including publishing and licensing deals, console agreements and distribution agreements. Mona made educating the independent developer community her mission long before entering the legal practice over five years ago.

Another attorney focusing on gaming related law, Ryan Morrison of Morrison/Lee, agreed: https://twitter.com/MrRyanMorrison/s...31399322116097

In reply, French's stance is the implied license protects older videos made by PDP, but Campo Santo can prevent new content. French also believes it probably won't go to court, as folks don't want to open that can of worms.

https://twitter.com/leonardjfrench/s...99363459342338
https://twitter.com/leonardjfrench/s...01289807077381
https://twitter.com/leonardjfrench/s...01446908940288
https://twitter.com/leonardjfrench/s...01632787886086

Which is to say, the law is difficult and there's no slam dunk here. What's out there also leans on Campo Santo's side currently, for better or for worse.

Originally Posted by DeadManWalking

The point is that you cant just DMCA video just because you don't like the guy. He can easily go to court and win.
Its amazing how many of you guys are ok with giving away fair use, just because of somone said naughty word.
Theres a great video about fair use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ZmVheuxpo

We do not currently know if Let's Plays count as Fair Use legally. So no, he can't easily go to court and win.
ViviOggi
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:32 AM)
More power to corporations yassssss queen
Massive Duck, C.M.
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:33 AM)
Massive Duck, C.M.'s Avatar
Many devs let streamers rock because it's free publicity with little to no consequences for them.

If some streamer started introducing all his videos with "Hey, this is Holocaust Denying Dave" you better believe there'd be some action taken
SomedayTheFire
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:35 AM)
SomedayTheFire's Avatar

Originally Posted by ViviOggi

More power to corporations yassssss queen

What a bad post.
Steroyd
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:35 AM)
Steroyd's Avatar

Originally Posted by DeadManWalking

The point is that you cant just DMCA video just because you don't like the guy. He can easily go to court and win.
Its amazing how many of you guys are ok with giving away fair use, just because of somone said naughty word.
Theres a great video about fair use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ZmVheuxpo

Let's plays aren't fair use kinda maybe, it's always been in that grey area till some law says otherwise and sets a precedent.

That being said the Firewatch devs were very open to allow let's players do their thing that they put it on their website and enjoyed the mutual benefit of "free advertisement" and given how Campo Santo don't want to associate themselves now instead of when the Nazi thing happened with PDP I find it hard to buy this is purely an image thing.
Taramoor
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:35 AM)

Originally Posted by Suzushiiro

It's pretty much a "you're not (legally) wrong, you're just an asshole" thing- yeah, the law says they can do it, but it's still a blatant abuse of the DMCA and sets the precedent for people to abuse it in the same way against much more sympathetic people.

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.

So yeah, they're completely in their rights to do it, but they're still complete and total fucking assholes for doing it, and in doing so they've made the entire situation worse for just about everybody except the one guy they were trying to hurt.

Nobody was going to turn on Pewdiepie. There were people defending him immediately, and others looking for any excuse to avoid condemning him. If Campo Santo hadn't done this they would've found another reason.
tmarg
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:36 AM)
tmarg's Avatar

Originally Posted by DeadManWalking

The point is that you cant just DMCA video just because you don't like the guy. He can easily go to court and win.
Its amazing how many of you guys are ok with giving away fair use, just because of somone said naughty word.
Theres a great video about fair use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ZmVheuxpo

It's not fair use. It's never been fair use. LPs aren't fair use. If all these YouTube lawyers actually believed that it was, they'd take on PDP as a client and make some money off of this "easy win". Spoiler: none of them will.

Just because a case hasn't actually been tried doesn't mean that all outcomes of that case are equally likely.
Crooked16th
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:37 AM)
Crooked16th's Avatar
America really needs Copyright Reform bad.
Seesaw15
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:41 AM)
Seesaw15's Avatar

Originally Posted by DeadManWalking

The point is that you cant just DMCA video just because you don't like the guy. He can easily go to court and win.
Its amazing how many of you guys are ok with giving away fair use, just because of somone said naughty word.
Theres a great video about fair use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ZmVheuxpo

Oh it was just naughty words? My bad. Shame on this game company getting its feelings hurt. /s
Pandy
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:44 AM)
Pandy's Avatar

Originally Posted by DeadManWalking

The point is that you cant just DMCA video just because you don't like the guy. He can easily go to court and win.
Its amazing how many of you guys are ok with giving away fair use, just because of somone said naughty word.
Theres a great video about fair use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5ZmVheuxpo

Let's Plays aren't fair use any more than me uploading a movie with my own commentary track would be.
You could upload the commentary on its own, but not audio or video from the source material.
Bluth54
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:46 AM)
Bluth54's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crooked16th

America really needs Copyright Reform bad.

I think there should be some kind of penalty for filing false DMCA takedowns (perhaps require some amount of money to be put up and the money doesn't get returned if it's a false claim).

I would also like to see old copyrights not be extended anymore. Sorry Disney but you got to let those Mickey Mouse cartoons go into the public domain.
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, 08:47 AM)
Durante's Avatar
I should make another thing clear: I don't give a shit about Pewdiepie, I've never even watched a single one of his videos.

But I'm always going to speak up against the DMCA being used (I won't say abused, since that makes it seem like it has a valid reason to exist), because it is an awful law that is basically designed to circumvent due process in the favor of large corporations.
yanipheonu
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:51 AM)
yanipheonu's Avatar
Fair use?
Linkstrikesback
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:51 AM)
Linkstrikesback's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

Tell me how would you categorize Youtubers - what is it that they do?

They're celebrities, specifically I'd lump them with whatever we call the job where people make their own dubs/commentaries for movies, e.g. rifftracks.

Those people do not have the right to redistribute the visual content of the films as they like even if they've redubbing the entire thing and I seriously doubt if it ever went to court it would end up any different for videogames.
Raxious
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:52 AM)
Raxious's Avatar
Couldn't their argument to DMCA Pewdiepie just be that they don't want to see their games being related with a racist?
Chindogg
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:56 AM)
Chindogg's Avatar

Originally Posted by Raxious

Couldn't their argument to DMCA Pewdiepie just be that they don't want to see their games being related with a racist?

Problem is it doesn't matter what their reasoning is.

A year ago people were bitching Nintendo out because PDP refused to play their content anymore due to the content program.

This is the same thing only now because PDP's a confirmed racist it's ok.

Originally Posted by Massive Duck, C.M.

Except it's not all the same people, it's not Nintendo, and Nintendo's content program has nothing to do with this

Actually it does. Nintendo used the DCMA in a way that they saw fit, similar to the Firewatch people.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want IP holders to have this power over content creators or you don't.

Originally Posted by Crooked16th

That would only work if he slandered the studio or game in his video and the slandering involved hate speech. The video they hit with a DMCA has every right to stay up according to their guide lines for uploading videos of their content.

Exactly. It sucks, but that's how this goes.
Last edited by Chindogg; 09-13-2017 at 09:04 AM.
Massive Duck, C.M.
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:57 AM)
Massive Duck, C.M.'s Avatar

Originally Posted by Chindogg

Problem is it doesn't matter what their reasoning is.

A year ago people were bitching Nintendo out because PDP refused to play their content anymore due to the content program.

This is the same thing only now because PDP's a confirmed racist it's ok.

Except it's not all the same people, it's not Nintendo, and Nintendo's content program has nothing to do with this
Trigonometrize.
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:00 AM)
Trigonometrize.'s Avatar

Originally Posted by ViviOggi

More power to corporations yassssss queen

PewDiePie is a lot bigger than a lot of the owners of the IP's he features, so...
Crooked16th
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:03 AM)
Crooked16th's Avatar

Originally Posted by Raxious

Couldn't their argument to DMCA Pewdiepie just be that they don't want to see their games being related with a racist?

That would only work if he slandered the studio or game in his video and the slandering involved hate speech. The video they hit with a DMCA has every right to stay up according to their guide lines for uploading videos of their content.
jwhit28
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:05 AM)
jwhit28's Avatar
Does it matter what the law specifies when you are playing by Google's rules? When the inevitable happens and a content creator is taken to court by a videogame publisher, even if a content creator wins the right to make let's plays, I don't think Google is in any way obligated to host them on their platform and risk the handshake agreements they have with publishers and rights holders.
Massive Duck, C.M.
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:07 AM)
Massive Duck, C.M.'s Avatar

Originally Posted by Chindogg




Actually it does. Nintendo used the DCMA in a way that they saw fit, similar to the Firewatch people.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want IP holders to have this power over content creators or you don't.

Oh lord

IP holders should have power over their content, and what PDP doesn't fall under fair use anyway.

All these people saying the Firewatch people should get fucked for having some balls and principles because they are also IP holders are making my head hurt
Octavia
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:08 AM)
Octavia's Avatar
What PDP did is wrong, but I do not see how him acting inappropriately on unrelated video content is misuse of copyright for firewatch. On the website for firewatch, it clearly says you may stream/upload video content of the game with no guidelines on what or who is acceptable to do this.

If that line wasn't there, they might have the leeway to do whatever they want with DMCA, but I think that clause alone would allow him to fight the claim and win, which he shouldn't, just take the loss and learn from it.
besada
#NotMyAmerica
(09-13-2017, 09:11 AM)
besada's Avatar
Imagine you threw a party. At that party, you had a new-release movie. As you played the movie, you engaged in commentary to your friends. Seems reasonable enough.

Now, imagine instead that you did the same thing, except you did it in a stadium that held twenty million people and you charged all of them.

Twenty million people watching the whole movie the week it comes out in theaters.

Beyond how irritated that would make the creators because twenty million people's first view of the film they've worked years on is overlaid with some jackass cracking jokes, they stand to lose business to you, because now twenty-million people know the entire story, including that amazing twist you managed to keep secret all through production.

A ton of this ill will would go away if creators were getting a per play license fee for the use of their content. Right now, everyone EXCEPT the creators of the original content are getting paid. If people could agree on some standard rates, it would be child's play to have Google simply deduct those from youtube revenue, allowing all parties to get paid in a more reasonable fashion.

Copyright is definitely broken, but if we're looking at who gets hosed in the youtube business, it's far more often original creators than it is youtubers or Youtube itself.
Chairmanchuck
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:12 AM)
Chairmanchuck's Avatar

Originally Posted by besada

Right now, everyone EXCEPT the creators of the original content are getting paid.

You could say that the creators get free advertisment.

Edit: In the end it depends on the game. In a "walking sim" you can experience almost everything a game has to offer via a LP. In something like DMC, it would be different. I agree with you though. I think the creators should get a cut from the LPer.

Under German copyright law LPers actually infringe a copyright. A still image e.g., a texture, some music by me as a game creator. I could actually forbid anyone to share it. It wouldnt fall under fair use.
Last edited by Chairmanchuck; 09-13-2017 at 09:19 AM.
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:16 AM)

Originally Posted by besada

A ton of this ill will would go away if creators were getting a per play license fee for the use of their content. Right now, everyone EXCEPT the creators of the original content are getting paid. If people could agree on some standard rates, it would be child's play to have Google simply deduct those from youtube revenue, allowing all parties to get paid in a more reasonable fashion.

Copyright is definitely broken, but if we're looking at who gets hosed in the youtube business, it's far more often original creators than it is youtubers or Youtube itself.

In a vacuum I would agree with you, but there are documented and clear effects of Youtube coverage benefiting sales greatly. PUBG being the latest one. I would be for IP holders receiving a tiny cut of a video though - provided additional safeguards were made for content creators.
Mooreberg
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:16 AM)
Mooreberg's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Wart

I don't understand what is remotely "abusive" about any of this. If someone builds their livelihood on material they have no legal right to, that's on them, and maybe they should reevaluate their business strategy. No one has any legal or moral obligation to allow random people to profit from their IP.

Agree with this. I have always found it weird that there are YouTube channels that just rip and upload every cut scene from a wide number of games and then collect revenue from ads.

Originally Posted by Farsi

If these studios don't want to be associated with a certain content creator then do the right thing and make it be known early on. Don't let the video give you a massive amount of free promotion and sales then decide to fuck the promoter afterwards when the sales dry up. That's just not right.

Thankfully most studios seem to understand it's a two way street.

Also agreed on this. If you want to get a point across, don't do it eighteen months after you have already made money from the YouTube or Twitch personality covering the product. It is disingenuous as hell.
SolidChamp
Banned
(09-13-2017, 09:17 AM)

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.

.
Chindogg
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:19 AM)
Chindogg's Avatar

Originally Posted by Massive Duck, C.M.

Oh lord

IP holders should have power over their content, and what PDP doesn't fall under fair use anyway.

All these people saying the Firewatch people should get fucked for having some balls and principles because they are also IP holders are making my head hurt

I'm glad we're on the same page. Unfortunately many on GAF believe that Youtubers have rights in regards to making money with others' IP.

Originally Posted by besada

Imagine you threw a party. At that party, you had a new-release movie. As you played the movie, you engaged in commentary to your friends. Seems reasonable enough.

Now, imagine instead that you did the same thing, except you did it in a stadium that held twenty million people and you charged all of them.

Twenty million people watching the whole movie the week it comes out in theaters.

Beyond how irritated that would make the creators because twenty million people's first view of the film they've worked years on is overlaid with some jackass cracking jokes, they stand to lose business to you, because now twenty-million people know the entire story, including that amazing twist you managed to keep secret all through production.

A ton of this ill will would go away if creators were getting a per play license fee for the use of their content. Right now, everyone EXCEPT the creators of the original content are getting paid. If people could agree on some standard rates, it would be child's play to have Google simply deduct those from youtube revenue, allowing all parties to get paid in a more reasonable fashion.

Copyright is definitely broken, but if we're looking at who gets hosed in the youtube business, it's far more often original creators than it is youtubers or Youtube itself.

Great analogy. But wasn't this the whole point of the Nintendo program? Laid out rules for revenue sharing?
Last edited by Chindogg; 09-13-2017 at 09:24 AM.
lazygecko
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:20 AM)
lazygecko's Avatar
This wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue if the burden of proof was on the side filing the DMCA and not the other way around. That's what's so fucked about all of this. If they can legally prove that they have the right to revoke PDP's video before actually having it taken down, then fine. It's not fine when videos of critique, analysis, etc that clearly fall under fair use can be taken down before the creator even gets a chance to dispute it, and even if they can eventually get their videos back up, this has the capacity to hurt the video creator finanically completely regardless of the legal basis behind the takedown.
Last edited by lazygecko; 09-13-2017 at 09:27 AM.
Evolution of Metal
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:28 AM)
Evolution of Metal's Avatar

Originally Posted by besada

Imagine you threw a party. At that party, you had a new-release movie. As you played the movie, you engaged in commentary to your friends. Seems reasonable enough.

Now, imagine instead that you did the same thing, except you did it in a stadium that held twenty million people and you charged all of them.

Twenty million people watching the whole movie the week it comes out in theaters.

Beyond how irritated that would make the creators because twenty million people's first view of the film they've worked years on is overlaid with some jackass cracking jokes, they stand to lose business to you, because now twenty-million people know the entire story, including that amazing twist you managed to keep secret all through production.

A ton of this ill will would go away if creators were getting a per play license fee for the use of their content. Right now, everyone EXCEPT the creators of the original content are getting paid. If people could agree on some standard rates, it would be child's play to have Google simply deduct those from youtube revenue, allowing all parties to get paid in a more reasonable fashion.

Copyright is definitely broken, but if we're looking at who gets hosed in the youtube business, it's far more often original creators than it is youtubers or Youtube itself.

It is a straw-man to use movies or sport events for this comparison. It is much easier to convince people that the original content was the main attraction when talking about those.

It is much harder to convince people that someone playing LoL or PUBG isn't the main attraction of the stream: people watch PDP because PDP is in it, not because PUBG or Firewatch is playing.

Do you have data about developers losing potential buyers because streamers are broadcasting it for free? Most publishers actually pay money to streamers to stream their game. Some developers are even adding bonuses for viewers for watching streams (CSGO, Dota, ES Legends).
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:31 AM)

Originally Posted by Evolution of Metal

It is a straw-man to use movies or sport events for this comparison. It is much easier to convince people that the original content was the main attraction when talking about those.

It is much harder to convince people that someone playing LoL or PUBG isn't the main attraction of the stream: people watch PDP because PDP is in it, not because PUBG or Firewatch is playing.

That's whats frustrating when discussing with people here - everyone is making comparisons to music and film when talking about fair use. The whole interactive element of videogames has no relatable equivalent in past history.
Vice
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:34 AM)
Vice's Avatar

Originally Posted by Evolution of Metal

It is a straw-man to use movies or sport events for this comparison. It is much easier to convince people that the original content was the main attraction when talking about those.

.

Many films are in a similar place. Groups like Rifftrax, MsT3K, etc. have been the main attraction of their series over the movies themselves and have run into many legal hurdles, no matter how little draw a film like "Puma Man" has. The content still involves a property that is owned by someone else. For sports, analysis is a huge thing for sports fans and relies heavily on personalities talking over clips owned by major sports leagues.
Chairmanchuck
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:34 AM)
Chairmanchuck's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

That's whats frustrating when discussing with people here - everyone is making comparisons to music and film when talking about fair use. The whole interactive element of videogames has no relatable equivalent in past history.

In the end it is still using images, voice acting, music etc. from the original product who fall under copyright.
No one would say its a problem when I use the top100 billboard charts for my YT video of me talking about mundane things and I get a DMCA.

I also cant comment on soccer matches AND use the rights to the soccer match, even though people would want to like to listen to my comments, because I dont own the rights to use the video.

Thread Tools