• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Chindogg
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:36 AM)
Chindogg's Avatar

Originally Posted by Vice

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.

RiffTrax and MST3K also license the films they commentate on.
Gormenghast
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:36 AM)
It's either or scenario. Either you agree DCMA can be "abused" to target a video of a person you don't like, on the basis you can because ALL those types of videos don't fall under fair use regardless.

Or you disagree, and you'd be able to DCMA legitimately only the specific video that contains racial slurs and that you want not to be associated with, but not the person.

For example I don't think Apple could forbid some person known to be a racist to buy the latest iphone.
King Tubby
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:39 AM)
King Tubby'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.

Sure it does. Choose Your Own Adventure books.

Let's take an example of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, a highly narrative driven game that basically consists of making choices that show different scenes, with some of them leading to a "false ending" of sorts, and most of them leading one way or another up the same, main branch.

There are plenty of youtubers who have uploaded Let's Plays of the entire game, some of whom include alternate choices for viewers who want to see what would have happened. If you want to experience all the content the game has to offer, you really only need to watch a Let's Play.

Is this really fundamentally different from someone who uploads an entire Choose Your Own Adventure book? We can even account for the LPer's commentary by saying the upload has been annotated. It would be a violation of copyright. Maybe the copyright owner will look the other way because it will bring their work much needed exposure, but they are well within their rights to request that it be taken down.

This is the exact grey area where Let's Plays exist. There may be some disagreement over how applicable this is to all sorts of games (it's not a great analogy for a game like, say, Civilization VI) but it at least seems applicable to some games, and Firewatch, as well as a lot of very popular LP'ed games, are a lot closer to something like Phoenix Wright.
LegendofLex
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:40 AM)
LegendofLex's Avatar

Originally Posted by Yukinari

Makes me worried for smaller channels. Pewdiepie setting dangerous precedents with his carelessness.

And yes im aware it can happen at anytime and is the right of the owner of the media.

If your content exists for education, criticism, research, or news reporting purposes, you don't have to worry as your content falls under fair use.

If you're playing games to provide entertainment for other people, as PDP does, you're delivering a performance of the game and should be prepared to have that performance treated like performances of other forms of media.

"Interactivity" as an aspect of video games that makes them exempt is a red herring. Any performance of a work is an interaction of the performer with the content of the original work. They can take creative license to "make the work their own," sometimes blending in variations on the source material, sometimes reacting to the source material in real time, sometimes adding variations in literary or musical style. Their performances are impacted by their personal proficiency at the craft associated with the work. A theater troupe's performance of a play or a filmmaker's treatment of a remade film all involve the same kinds of creative decision making involved in playing a video game.
Last edited by LegendofLex; 09-13-2017 at 09:46 AM.
KratosEnergyDrink
Banned
(09-13-2017, 09:40 AM)
This whole lets play scene is going to die slowly. It took the content creators a lot of time to realize that the marketing effect is questionable and perhaps even can shade their product.

The scene is based on content of others and add nothing it was clear that it would not live long.
Chindogg
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:44 AM)
Chindogg's Avatar

Originally Posted by KratosEnergyDrink

This whole lets play scene is going to die slowly. It took the content creators a lot of time to realize that the marketing effect is questionable and perhaps even can shade their product.

The scene is based on content of others and add nothing it was clear that it would not live long.

I don't think it'll die, but I do think they'll cut deals with publishers to be used as for advertising purposes. The days of Youtubers thinking that they can be paid to just play games on stream without any compromise is pretty much over and yeah the guy who made it popular is the reason why that's happening.
Mithos
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:46 AM)
Mithos's Avatar

Originally Posted by LegendofLex

If your content exists for education, criticism, research, or news reporting purposes, you don't have to worry as your content falls under fair use.

But all these type of videos can have people say thing you do not want to be associated with, and then you can send them a "DMCA takedown, no reasoning required", can you not?
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:47 AM)

Originally Posted by King Tubby

Sure it does. Choose Your Own Adventure books.

This is the exact grey area where Let's Plays exist. There may be some disagreement over how applicable this is to all sorts of games (it's not a great analogy for a game like, say, Civilization VI) but it at least seems applicable to some games, and Firewatch, as well as a lot of very popular LP'ed games, are a lot closer to something like Phoenix Wright.

I definitely agree there has to be some granularity about fair use. A walking simulator has a far closer movie experience to a more open ended game. Would you argue the same for a game like Rocket League which is highly dependent on individual player performance?

Originally Posted by Chairmanchuck

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.

Agreed, but that has no bearing on the cases being discussed here.
Mooreberg
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:49 AM)
Mooreberg's Avatar

Originally Posted by Gormenghast

It's either or scenario. Either you agree DCMA can be "abused" to target a video of a person you don't like, on the basis you can because ALL those types of videos don't fall under fair use.

Or you disagree, and you'd be able to DCMA legitimately only the specific video that contains racial slurs and that you want not to be associated with, but not the person.

The weird thing about all of this is that before you even get to legal ramifications, you have to acknowledge that Google is free to create whatever rules they want. They could prohibit minors from seeing any M rated game content if they wanted to (and yes, digital titles like PUBG have no actual classification before dealing with ESRB). If they are footing the bill on bandwith and servers, and running the entire ad business, they can do whatever they want that does not violate a contract.

Where this could be strange is if it were used on someone hosting their own content. If somebody puts up podcasts with all manner of content that a company finds alarming, could self hosted reviews be taken down because of things that were said entirely outside of the context of the review? At that point there is no megacorp TOS to fall back on, and a hosting company that has already allowed the site to exist on their servers is not going to shut anything down over content that is not actually infringement.
Bluth54
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:50 AM)
Bluth54's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chindogg

RiffTrax and MST3K also license the films they commentate on.

Or they just release their commentary and you have to provide a copy of the movie.
Sad Affleck
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:50 AM)
Sad Affleck'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.

The issue here is not the right of the copyright holder to deny access to that content to YouTubers. Until a court ruling determines the status of let's plays they have the right to allow or deny them as they please. The huge problem in this case is that these particular developers gave explicit permission to YouTubers with no clauses and rules and they are revoking that permission from a specific individual using a process whose intended purpose is to stop copyright violations.

DMCA is supposed to be a tool to fight copyright violation. Pewdiepie is a racist shitbag but he did not violate copyright. He had permission to use game footage and the developers are using DMCA to punish him. This is wrong and it can lead to serious abuse of the DMCA process.
LegendofLex
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:51 AM)
LegendofLex's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mithos

But all these type of videos can have people say thing you do not want to be associated with, and then you can send them a "DMCA takedown, no reasoning required", can you not?

You can.

And as the content creator, I can dispute your DMCA takedown and possibly take you to court.

The problem we have right now is that the DMCA system effectively puts enforcement in YouTube's court, and YouTube has only weak incentives to respond to DMCA disputes since failing to do so seems to have no meaningful consequences for their business. Meanwhile, they have powerful incentives to comply with takedown requests, since failing to do so would threaten their business.
spindoctor
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:53 AM)
spindoctor's Avatar
Was there any reason the same end goal could not have been achieved by sending a simple two line email to PDP saying that they wanted to end their business relationship and telling him to remove those videos from his channel?

Why did they have to publicly announce that they were instead using DMCA takedowns and asking others to do the same? The DMCA system is completely broken (at least the way Youtube handles it) and ripe for abuse. Being legally allowed to issue takedowns doesn't change that.
Evolution of Metal
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:53 AM)
Evolution of Metal's Avatar

Originally Posted by KratosEnergyDrink

This whole lets play scene is going to die slowly. It took the content creators a lot of time to realize that the marketing effect is questionable and perhaps even can shade their product.

The scene is based on content of others and add nothing it was clear that it would not live long.

Your comment is baseless, it does not correlate to what publishers are doing at the moment.

• Every bigger game gets the influencer/streamer/youtuber paid push. Even small indie developers would just track people whose audience they can leverage.

• Game companies add initiatives for viewers to watch other people play their game.

• Youtubers provide a lot of entertainment for viewers, evidenced by the fact that so many people watch them. The scene is not going anywhere...

• Youtubers are beneficial for players who can make a better decision based on the quantity of the impressions and footage of the game.

• Youtubers have revenue opportunities for playing games.

The system literally benefits everyone to the point where publishers will pay youtubers for the content creation AND some even reward viewers for watching with in-game items.
King Tubby
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:54 AM)
King Tubby's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

I definitely agree there has to be some granularity about fair use. A walking simulator has a far closer movie experience to a more open ended game. Would you argue the same for a game like Rocket League which is highly dependent on individual player performance?

I think cases like Rocket League and Civilization and other games which are more analogous to an exhibition of player performance rather than a performance of a copyrighted narrative are a lot more ambiguous when it comes to the law because there is very little precedent, as far as I know. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

It's a bit more like an RP group broadcasting their game of Dungeons & Dragons to the world. I don't really think Wizards of the Coast could issue a takedown request or argue that their copyright has been violated, but that's still somewhat abstracted and nebulous. You couldn't just recite the entire Player's Handbook or upload it to the internet. Someone playing Rocket League is broadcasting copyrighted assets for people to view. It's a difficult question.
Massive Duck, C.M.
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:54 AM)
Massive Duck, C.M.'s Avatar

Originally Posted by spindoctor

Was there any reason the same end goal could not have been achieved by sending a simple two line email to PDP saying that they wanted to end their business relationship and telling him to remove those videos from his channel?

Why did they have to publicly announce that they were instead using DMCA takedowns and asking others to do the same? The DMCA system is completely broken (at least the way Youtube handles it) and ripe for abuse. Being legally allowed to issue takedowns doesn't change that.

Point was to take a clear stance against PDP's behavior with tangible consequences.
Nanashrew
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:54 AM)
Nanashrew's Avatar
You ask your mom to spend the night at a friends house and she says yes. Then later she changes her mind and says no, and for good reason because you got in trouble for doing something bad.

That is the equivalent. There are no clauses and stuff on Campo Santo's site, sure. It's a blanket permission, one that they can revoke how they see fit if what you did doesn't align with their values. Should it be updated? Definitely. Does it matter currently? Not really.
Seesaw15
Member
(09-13-2017, 09:57 AM)
Seesaw15's Avatar

Originally Posted by spindoctor

Was there any reason the same end goal could not have been achieved by sending a simple two line email to PDP saying that they wanted to end their business relationship and telling him to remove those videos from his channel?

Why did they have to publicly announce that they were instead using DMCA takedowns and asking others to do the same? The DMCA system is completely broken (at least the way Youtube handles it) and ripe for abuse. Being legally allowed to issue takedowns doesn't change that.

They wanted to publicly announce the consequences of using a racial slur.
Aureon
Please do not let me serve on a jury. I am actually a crazy person.
(09-13-2017, 09:59 AM)
Aureon'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 would fully support a law that clearly defines the cases in which a creator can take down videos. Racism and hate speech should definitely be one of them. Otherwise I would prefer no such possibility at all rather than this vague "I can take your video down for any reason" clause.

The reason LPs don't get fair use is that they show a huge part of the work with minimal commentary.

A video showing a 30s clip with a crash, or a review mentioning crashes and using clips as proof, absolutely falls under fair use.
Mooreberg
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:00 AM)
Mooreberg's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nanashrew

You ask your mom to spend the night at a friends house and she says yes. Then later she changes her mind and says no, and for good reason because you got in trouble for doing something bad.

Maybe in some bizzaro dimension where sleepovers last a year and a half and the mom makes money from her child attending. Where the hell do people get these analogies from?
Sad Affleck
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:01 AM)
Sad Affleck's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nanashrew

You ask your mom to spend the night at a friends house and she says yes. Then later she changes her mind and says no, and for good reason because you got in trouble for doing something bad.

That is the equivalent. There are no clauses and stuff on Campo Santo's site, sure. It's a blanket permission, one that they can revoke how they see fit if what you did doesn't align with their values. Should it be updated? Definitely. Does it matter currently? Not really.

It does matter. They are well within their rights to deny Pewdiepie any future permission to broadcast their games. They have no right to claim that their copyright was violated when no such violation happened.
Nanashrew
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:04 AM)
Nanashrew's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mooreberg

Maybe in some bizzaro dimension where sleepovers last a year and a half and the mom makes money from her child attending. Where the hell do people get these analogies from?

You can't play games if you're grounded.

Your boss as a Let's Player are the publishers and developers and you have to play by their rules like working at any other company. You may be able to set your own rules and what content you want to create, but you are still at the whim of everyone else.


EDIT: Also the analogy was, all these are, are permissions and they can say no if they choose. They're not legally non-revocable contracts.
Last edited by Nanashrew; 09-13-2017 at 10:06 AM.
spindoctor
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:05 AM)
spindoctor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Massive Duck, C.M.

Point was to take a clear stance against PDP's behavior with tangible consequences.

Originally Posted by Seesaw15

They wanted to publicly announce the consequences of using a racial slur.

Again, those consequences could also be achieved by sending him an email or even a tweet and telling him to remove those videos. And then you can tell the world what you did. Why exactly was a DMCA takedown required? Were they trying to put copyright strikes on his channel?
Nanashrew
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:09 AM)
Nanashrew's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sad Affleck

It does matter. They are well within their rights to deny Pewdiepie any future permission to broadcast their games. They have no right to claim that their copyright was violated when no such violation happened.

They can invoke copyright after denying him their permission so he cannot make money off their product anymore. That is what is being done. They don't need a reason for those specific videos, they have enough reason to deny him any content of theirs, even retroactively because they do not want to be associated with him.
PritheeBeCareful
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:12 AM)
PritheeBeCareful'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. 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

The hundreds and thousands of hours of hard work, vast number of skillsets and creative horsepower that go into crafting a gaming experience are not suddnely voided because a gobby twenty-something talks over it for thirty minutes.

But it's free advertising, some will argue, they're gettting exposure. True, they are, but I've yet to see a case where what the devs earned for their hundreds of hours of work is commensurate to what the Let's Player earned for recording and sharing their playthrough.

Markiplier (who seems like a decent enough guy) built his entire empire on Let's Plays of FNAF and Amnesia, but let's be honest here - who's done better out of that little arrangement?

Originally Posted by KyleCross

YouTubers and streamers have been told for years that Let's Plays and streaming a game isn't fair-use, but they never listened because "Well, I heard it was.?

I don't even think general commentators like TB and Jim Sterling pass this litmus test. They'll normally sync up their commentary with vaguely related video content, but rarely is this stuff illustrative. Jim, for example, will talk for three or four minutes about Nintendo's business practises to a backdrop of say Splatoon in multiplayer mode, but really, there's no connection there. What does the way Splatoon plays really have to do with Nintendo's corporate attitude? Nothing, really.

The only ones that do fall under fair use, to my mind, are people like ACG and DF, where the content editied into the video is almost always illustrative of the commentary being made. They'll even freeze and zoom-in or run frame rate overlays, not to add a dynamic visual backdrop, but to illustrate their written point - like adding quotes to an essay.
Last edited by PritheeBeCareful; 09-13-2017 at 10:22 AM.
KyleCross
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:12 AM)
KyleCross's Avatar
YouTubers and streamers have been told for years that Let's Plays and streaming a game isn't fair-use, but they never listened because "Well, I heard it was. So it is." I grew increasing more and more concerned for the well-being of many Let's Players and streamers because they became more and more dependent on it when the rug can be pulled out from under them at any time. Many of them are now being quite vocal over recent DMCA actions and how their livelihoods are at stake I want to feel bad for them, but they knew this wasn't kosher, or they chose to never educate themselves on the matter.

Like the recent thing with H3H3 being sued because they used a clip from another YouTuber and provided criticism that was absolutely fair-use. The YouTuber sued them anyways and sure enough, H3H3 won the lawsuit because it was fair-use. That resulted in a bunch of Let's Players celebrating because they somehow thought that somehow applied to video games...? LIke, how can you make this your job and not do some research on it?
Quote
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:14 AM)
Quote's Avatar

Originally Posted by Steroyd

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.

Uh, what do you think the motive is then?
Seesaw15
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:14 AM)
Seesaw15's Avatar

Originally Posted by spindoctor

Again, those consequences could also be achieved by sending him an email or even a tweet and telling him to remove those videos. And then you can tell the world what you did. Why exactly was a DMCA takedown required? Were they trying to put copyright strikes on his channel?

Probably. Why should they be civil and do everything behind closed doors when PDP been acting out on a public stage? They wanted to show the world that they wouldn't tolerate PDP and that his actions would have severe consequences.
Nanashrew
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:15 AM)
Nanashrew's Avatar

Originally Posted by spindoctor

Again, those consequences could also be achieved by sending him an email or even a tweet and telling him to remove those videos. And then you can tell the world what you did. Why exactly was a DMCA takedown required? Were they trying to put copyright strikes on his channel?

There are multiple tiers to handle it imo. Content ID, the least amount of effort (but the video would remain up), Simogo's way asking him over Twitter to take it down, C&D, or DMCA.

All viable and it's up to developers and companies how they will handle a given situation. That is the power they hold and some are now waking up to the fact that they can hold such power to not tolerate racists like PDP.
TatteredHat
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:16 AM)
TatteredHat's Avatar
As much as I want channels like PDP to be punished I can't agree with DMCA, it's way too easy to abuse for corporations.
Gormenghast
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:16 AM)

Originally Posted by spindoctor

Again, those consequences could also be achieved by sending him an email or even a tweet and telling him to remove those videos. And then you can tell the world what you did. Why exactly was a DMCA takedown required?

Oh, come on, you know the answer.

Either they hate the guy for what he has done, and so they use what they have to hurt him the most.

Or you subscribe to the "virtue signaling" kind of position. It's an occasion to have their name freely publicized and appreciated by a certain public.

Since the second option is likely to backfire, and is quite risky as their customers aren't going to be on one side only, I tend to believe the first option: they are simply hitting the guy with the worst they have in their hands, because they feel a moral principle that tells them to do so.
Trigonometrize.
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:16 AM)
Trigonometrize.'s Avatar

Originally Posted by PritheeBeCareful

The hundreds and thousands of hours of hard work, vast number of skillsets and creative horsepower that go into crafting a gaming experience are not suddnely voided because a gobby twenty-something talks over it for thirty minutes.

I can't take anyone's argument seriously when you start pointing to the work that goes in and deriding the product of the youtuber. Both of these things are irrelevant.
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:19 AM)

Originally Posted by PritheeBeCareful

Markiplier (who seems like a decent enough guy) built his entire empire on Let's Plays of FNAF and Amnesia, but let's be honest here - who's done better out of that little arrangement?

Er, the people who sold millions of copies of the games in question? I'm not saying that they owe to just Markiplier, but the collective helps push games in the spotlight out of the thousands of games being released.
Seesaw15
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:21 AM)
Seesaw15's Avatar

Originally Posted by Steroyd

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.

Maybe they gave PDP the benefit of the doubt that it was satire/edgy humor with the fiver nazi comments. But after Charlottesville I can understand them wanting to completely cut ties from that part of the gaming community.
PritheeBeCareful
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:24 AM)
PritheeBeCareful's Avatar

Originally Posted by Trigonometrize.

I can't take anyone's argument seriously when you start pointing to the work that goes in and deriding the product of the youtuber. Both of these things are irrelevant.

Can't take it seriously or can't counter it?
Nanashrew
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:28 AM)
Nanashrew's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chindogg

I don't think it'll die, but I do think they'll cut deals with publishers to be used as for advertising purposes. The days of Youtubers thinking that they can be paid to just play games on stream without any compromise is pretty much over and yeah the guy who made it popular is the reason why that's happening.

On this topic it kind of already is a thing but partnerships definitely will increase over time where some work with Publishers or big name companies.

PDP used to be part of Disney and he lost that cozy gig and now Jacksepticeye gets played on Disney XD. What a world we live in. And I think that should also clue people in too that these companies see you as entertainment to buy and sell. Not some person on YouTube yelling about fair use, but an entertainer, an actor, a personality, someone they can hire for entertainment purposes and marketing. Which defeats any kind of fair use talk.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by KyleCross

YouTubers and streamers have been told for years that Let's Plays and streaming a game isn't fair-use, but they never listened because "Well, I heard it was. So it is." I grew increasing more and more concerned for the well-being of many Let's Players and streamers because they became more and more dependent on it when the rug can be pulled out from under them at any time. Many of them are now being quite vocal over recent DMCA actions and how their livelihoods are at stake I want to feel bad for them, but they knew this wasn't kosher, or they chose to never educate themselves on the matter.

Like the recent thing with H3H3 being sued because they used a clip from another YouTuber and provided criticism that was absolutely fair-use. The YouTuber sued them anyways and sure enough, H3H3 won the lawsuit because it was fair-use. That resulted in a bunch of Let's Players celebrating because they somehow thought that somehow applied to video games...? LIke, how can you make this your job and not do some research on it?

It comes from illusion they've been under for so long from the permission given by all these companies. They believe they are either fair use or free marketing all while making their own dollars. And none of their arguments ever make sense. Like what I said about in how these companies really see these YouTubers.

Or even outlined here:

Originally Posted by Evolution of Metal

Your comment is baseless, it does not correlate to what publishers are doing at the moment.

• Every bigger game gets the influencer/streamer/youtuber paid push. Even small indie developers would just track people whose audience they can leverage.

• Game companies add initiatives for viewers to watch other people play their game.

• Youtubers provide a lot of entertainment for viewers, evidenced by the fact that so many people watch them. The scene is not going anywhere...

• Youtubers are beneficial for players who can make a better decision based on the quantity of the impressions and footage of the game.

• Youtubers have revenue opportunities for playing games.

The system literally benefits everyone to the point where publishers will pay youtubers for the content creation AND some even reward viewers for watching with in-game items.

That they are seen as just another marketing arm and paying them to market their game like a Hollywood celebrity endorsement.
Last edited by Nanashrew; 09-13-2017 at 10:39 AM.
Sad Affleck
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:50 AM)
Sad Affleck's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nanashrew

They can invoke copyright after denying him their permission so he cannot make money off their product anymore. That is what is being done. They don't need a reason for those specific videos, they have enough reason to deny him any content of theirs, even retroactively because they do not want to be associated with him.

They are abusing the system's vagueness and faults to do something that has nothing to do with copyright violation.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:53 AM)
TheThreadsThatBindUs's Avatar
In my cynical opinion, given that this merely impacts videos like "Let's Plays"—since reviews/previews using small snippets of game footage are protected under "fair use"—I'd be pretty happy if DMCA takedowns ended LPs forever.

At least then we wouldn't have so-called "experts" on gaming forums, spreading misinformed views about games they never played but merely watched on YouTube.

Equally, I believe that it would give more visual novel-type games, and whatever the hell genre Quantic Dreams games and Supermassive games are, a fighting chance for better commercial success. Far too many people I've come across IRL enjoy pretty much everything these games have to offer by watching them on YouTube without paying a dime and I hardly see that as fair to the games creators.
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:53 AM)
I'm starting to realize that people here are conflating their disdain for youtubers in general with the conversation of fair use. If you're going to let personal bias in here, we might as well not even talk.
Nanashrew
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:57 AM)
Nanashrew's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

I'm starting to realize that people here are conflating their disdain for youtubers in general with the conversation of fair use. If you're going to let personal bias in here, we might as well not even talk.

I like let's players but we do have to be real here. Companies do see them as entertainers and another form of the marketing arm. It's one of the big reasons the FTC had to get involved with YouTubers because plenty were being exploited.

And all the talk of fair use doesn't line up with anything that's been happening in the world of YouTube and streaming, and how many are making deals with companies as entertainers.
Star Orpheus
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:58 AM)
Star Orpheus's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheThreadsThatBindUs

In my cynical opinion, given that this merely impacts videos like "Let's Plays"—since reviews/previews using small snippets of game footage are protected under "fair use"—I'd be pretty happy if DMCA takedowns ended LPs forever.

At least then we wouldn't have so-called "experts" on gaming forums, spreading misinformed views about games they never played but merely watched on YouTube.

Equally, I believe that it would give more visual novel-type games, and whatever the hell genre Quantic Dreams games and Supermassive games are, a fighting chance for better commercial success. Far too many people I've come across IRL enjoy pretty much everything these games have to offer by watching them on YouTube without paying a dime and I hardly see that as fair to the games creators.

So because some people who probably weren't going to buy those games in the first place are pricks your ok with ruining it for everyone else?

I've bought several games I would have had no interest in previously thanks to LP'rs. Plus letting me see games I wouldn't be able to play otherwise.
PritheeBeCareful
Member
(09-13-2017, 10:59 AM)
PritheeBeCareful's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nanashrew

I like let's players but we do have to be real here. Companies do see them as entertainers and another form of the marketing arm. It's one of the big reasons the FTC had to get involved with YouTubers because plenty were being exploited.

And all the talk of fair use doesn't line up with anything that's been happening in the world of YouTube and streaming, and how many are making deals with companies as entertainers.

It's an entire branch of marketing these days: influencer marketing.
Massive Duck, C.M.
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:00 AM)
Massive Duck, C.M.'s Avatar

Originally Posted by spindoctor

Again, those consequences could also be achieved by sending him an email or even a tweet and telling him to remove those videos. And then you can tell the world what you did. Why exactly was a DMCA takedown required? Were they trying to put copyright strikes on his channel?

Those wouldn't be the same consequences, not to mention the fact he could just ignore being asked to remove the videos.
spindoctor
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:04 AM)
spindoctor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Seesaw15

Probably. Why should they be civil and do everything behind closed doors when PDP been acting out on a public stage? They wanted to show the world that they wouldn't tolerate PDP and that his actions would have severe consequences.

So it's not just that they want to distance themselves from PDP and stop him from making money off their content. Campo Santo have decided to take it upon themselves to punish him. They also tweeted about talking to other developers to do the same thing.

So, independent of the people involved, this is a case of a set of content creators colluding to issue DMCA takedown notices on videos that are year(s) old with the intent to put enough copyright strikes on a Youtube channel to shut it down because they don't like the channel owner anymore.

And we're saying this is not an abuse of the DMCA?

The DMCA exists to stop me from uploading Wonder Woman to my Youtube channel and streaming it for free. They were perfectly happy with those Lets Play videos being up on his channel before so how did it suddenly become copyright violation now? We can discuss the legality and fair use and all that but the fact is that this was the DMCA being abused for a very specific purpose that was not copyright violation.

Originally Posted by Massive Duck, C.M.

Those wouldn't be the same consequences, not to mention the fact he could just ignore being asked to remove the videos.

I doubt he would ignore that request but if he did, it would be a completely valid use of the DMCA takedown.
King Tubby
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:11 AM)
King Tubby's Avatar

Originally Posted by spindoctor

So it's not just that they want to distance themselves from PDP and stop him from making money off their content. Campo Santo have decided to take it upon themselves to punish him. They also tweeted about talking to other developers to do the same thing.

So, independent of the people involved, this is a case of a set of content creators colluding to issue DMCA takedown notices on videos that are year(s) old with the intent to put enough copyright strikes on a Youtube channel to shut it down because they don't like the channel owner anymore.

And we're saying this is not an abuse of the DMCA?

The DMCA exists to stop me from uploading Wonder Woman to my Youtube channel and streaming it for free. They were perfectly happy with those Lets Play videos being up on his channel before so how did it suddenly become copyright violation now? We can discuss the legality and fair use and all that but the fact is that this was the DMCA being abused for a very specific purpose that was not copyright violation.

I think the idea is that it was always a copyright violation, just one they were willing to look over for whatever reason. They are no longer willing to give him a pass and are exercising their rights as the IP holder. I don't think PewDiePie has to refund the advertising revenue he made from his Firewatch videos. As for YouTube shutting his channel down for strikes, that is entirely a flaw with YouTube's system, it's not the fault of the law. I'm not really sure about these things though.

Does that count as abuse? I don't know. I think it's partly the chickens coming home to roost for a category of content that's been real iffy since its inception. I think there are real issues with Let's Plays that aren't very clear cut.
ClosingADoor
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:13 AM)
ClosingADoor's Avatar

Originally Posted by spindoctor

So it's not just that they want to distance themselves from PDP and stop him from making money off their content. Campo Santo have decided to take it upon themselves to punish him. They also tweeted about talking to other developers to do the same thing.

So, independent of the people involved, this is a case of a set of content creators colluding to issue DMCA takedown notices on videos that are year(s) old with the intent to put enough copyright strikes on a Youtube channel to shut it down because they don't like the channel owner anymore.

And we're saying this is not an abuse of the DMCA?

The DMCA exists to stop me from uploading Wonder Woman to my Youtube channel and streaming it for free. They were perfectly happy with those Lets Play videos being up on his channel before so how did it suddenly become copyright violation now? We can discuss the legality and fair use and all that but the fact is that this was the DMCA being abused for a very specific purpose that was not copyright violation.

They revoked his license, and from that point onward his publication of the video was a copyright violation.

This happens all the time in media. You lose a license, you can't distribute the work anymore. Take for example videogames removed from a digital store after a music track license has expired.
deadscreensky
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:15 AM)
deadscreensky's Avatar

Originally Posted by spindoctor

The DMCA exists to stop me from uploading Wonder Woman to my Youtube channel and streaming it for free. They were perfectly happy with those Lets Play videos being up on his channel before so how did it suddenly become copyright violation now? We can discuss the legality and fair use and all that but the fact is that this was the DMCA being abused for a very specific purpose that was not copyright violation.

The article covers this in some detail, but essentially many people are confusing permissive use with fair use. Just because the developers gave broad permissions to use their copyrighted material doesn't make every existing and future use of that material acceptable, and it's perfectly within their rights to revoke that permission at any time. They still own their game and its copyright. They've just reverting back to normal copyright standards for PDP.

I'm no defender of the DMCA by any means, but everything I've seen of this situation makes it seem to me like it's being used fairly reasonably here.

EDIT: Explained better above, obviously.
Nanashrew
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:19 AM)
Nanashrew's Avatar
And with everything that I've been saying on this page, with YouTubers being entertainers and making deals and getting paid to be influencers, they are part of the entertainment business. What we're seeing is actually classic stuff in how PDP is being treated by business partners and possible business ventures for his stupid and selfish antics and racism. This has become a very big business far outside of fair use these days, especially many having to work with companies for additional money to market things like Lootcrate because of the adpocolypse.

PDP being the liability that he is, the DMCA stuff is small fry and completely normal in the entertainment world and even warranted. But he's such a liability it's only going to get worse. Not only hurting himself, but absolutely everyone.

https://twitter.com/TheOnlyMikeJ/sta...605826/photo/1

So this is interesting. Advertisers on YouTube can specifically select to not show their ads on gaming content.

Last edited by Nanashrew; 09-13-2017 at 11:21 AM.
LegendofLex
Member
(09-13-2017, 11:19 AM)
LegendofLex's Avatar

Originally Posted by spindoctor

The DMCA exists to stop me from uploading Wonder Woman to my Youtube channel and streaming it for free.

The DMCA doesn't specifically exist for this; this would already have been illegal under pre-DMCA copyright law. What DMCA does is more codify how digital copyright violations are enforced, focusing mostly on copy protection circumvention and (later) liability.

That's why people are focused on issues like performances vs. fair use, licensed vs. unlicensed use, etc. This simply isn't a DMCA issue (is YouTube behaving the way they should in compliance with the law around fair use); DMCA is just the mechanism for compliance, and the real question at stake is whether PDP can claim he doesn't need permission to stream their games.
Last edited by LegendofLex; 09-13-2017 at 11:23 AM.
SG-17
Junior Member
(09-13-2017, 11:28 AM)
SG-17's Avatar
If YouTube won't police content then the owners of the IPs will have to.

Thread Tools