Pewdiepie is just a liability at this point. For everyone in the business.
Here's Jim Sterling's take.
https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/907026683420663808
PDP is hurting the business for let's players.
Here's Jim Sterling's take.
https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/907026683420663808
PDP is hurting the business for let's players.
Sure, I don't deny that IP ownership isn't a super-narrow thing. However, all of your examples lead to something that is demonstrably interfering with the market of the original. Make a play with elements of the original play? Bad. Got it. But I don't think you can offer quite the same proof with videos of a game being played, even in extreme examples of visual novels with no commentary. They're derisions from the original but so fundamentally different. Even the developer of most games can not upload a single video that will cover all the different ways people can transform the work.That's absolutely wrong. If you wrote a play, I couldn't use the script from the play to perform it without your permission. If you made a movie, I couldn't copy the ideas from it wholesale and make my own movie without your permission. If you wrote a song, I couldn't rearrange it, or even take small portions from it, and sell it without your permission.
Intellectual property encompasses more than the finished work. It also includes the ideas and elements that constitute that work.
This pretty much, all they are doing is revoking Felix's license to host content and make money on their game.
Plus they clearly don't want their branding to be associated with a racist and they have the right to do that.
Keemstar is an alt-right Trump supporter thus he has no value of worth to say.
Not sure if this necessarily classes as Jim taking a stance on the DMCA stuff, so much as talking about PDP and his impact on... well, Youtube, Let's Plays, you name it. Would wait and see until he answers on it specifically.
I mean, PDP is kind of the face of YouTube. His constant controversies are nothing but damaging to everyone because everyone else has to pay for his controversies while PDP gets off scott free.
I think its one of those things that probably needs to go through a court room just to shut up some of the "BUT FAIR USE MEANS I CAN DO WHAT I WANT" crowd.
Game streaming is a bit of a wild west legally ATM but if it came down to it I dont see how it wouldn't be different then rebroadcasting other forms of media where the IP holder always has the final say.
Sure, I don't deny that IP ownership isn't a super-narrow thing. However, all of your examples lead to something that is demonstrably interfering with the market of the original. Make a play with elements of the original play? Bad. Got it. But I don't think you can offer quite the same proof with videos of a game being played, even in extreme examples of visual novels with no commentary. They're derisions from the original but so fundamentally different. Even the developer of most games can not upload a single video that will cover all the different ways people can transform the work.
If I have content and you use that content to make money while using hate speech then you get fucked.
If you make money with my content and you just trash talk it then I have to stfu.
To go off of the example that I linked to, I'm not sure how The Verve using a five-second sample of an instrumental orchestral version of a Rolling Stones song on the very different "Bittersweet Symphony" demonstrably interferes with the market for their music, but a video of Pewdiepie playing through the narrative-heavy Firewatch does not interfere with the market for Firewatch.
The five-second sample seems pretty extreme to me and I would want to have that changed if I were invested in that industry, but again, they're so fundamentally different. Rolling Stones already released music called "Bittersweet Symphony," so I can understand the argument that someone else releasing parts of "Bittersweet Symphony" as music and in somewhat of the medium and form it originally appeared in is a violation, even if the length is on the lower side of things. However, I cannot understand the argument of the video of PDP playing the game being the same thing as the game. Why doesn't Campo Santos just release a video of Firewatch being played in the style of PDP made by themselves instead of the game? Or even just alongside the game? Maybe it's because the markets and mediums are different with entirely different goals and sometimes even audiences?
It just seems obvious to me that videos of games being played are on a different level than samples and scripts.
A DMCA takedown is the wrong tool for the job. But also the only one available at this point? There should be a proper avenue for developers to do this.If companies and advertisers can do it because they don't want their product associated with racists, sexists, neonazis, etc, why can't a developer do the same?
What's the difference between that and BMW pulling their ads from Breitbart because they don't want to be associated with them?
Yep. He's the biggest in the business. Pretty sure his anti Semitic jokes are what started the adpocalypse. If he couldn't control himself the first time YouTubers should speak up since he'll only do more damageHere's Jim Sterling's take.
https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/907026683420663808
PDP is hurting the business for let's players.
Gaming might seem like a grey area compared to music and film but what about a food product? For example someone on youtube delivers a racist monologue each week sat next to a tube of pringles, has 50 million subs, the person and the pringles are the two most prominent parts screen and also the person consumes a few.
Product placement is the cry? Isn't playing Monopoly, eating whatever branded food or playing Destiny showcasing a product?
Seems like a ToS issue. A review is fair use.
There is no Rolling Stones song called "Bittersweet Symphony". You might be confused because the Rolling Stones got 100% of the songwriting credits for that song after they won a lawsuit against The Verve for the use of a sample performed by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra and arranged by somebody with no relationship to The Rolling Stones.
That is sort of what fair use means as long as it meets certain standards. That's why I think the video game attorney is wrong, or at least he is expressing a personal opinion that isn't backed up by case law.
Sorry, I should've given that a closer read. Again, that seems really strict that the Rolling Stone was able to reach across multiple steps of removal from its original work, yet the medium didn't change and the markets for the medium didn't change, so I can still see the spirit of the violation.
If companies and advertisers can do it because they don't want their product associated with racists, sexists, neonazis, etc, why can't a developer do the same?
What's the difference between that and BMW pulling their ads from Breitbart because they don't want to be associated with them?
They're well within their legal rights to do this, but in an ideal world I don't think they would because I think most gameplay should be considered fair use. Because of that, arbitrarily enforcing takedowns feels pretty shady to me.
PDP's videos aren't reviews/critiquesI'm sorry but no, while I loved Firewatch and I despise what Pewdiepie said, you can't use DMCA like this nor should you be able to.
IF they are allowed to do this then nothing would stop pubs from using it to silence critical views, etc.
Virtually none of the Let's Play videos meet the standards of Fair Use. That's part of the problem. Fair Use is decided based on a set of issues, including whether the content is educational or commercial, how much of the content is used, whether the content adds value, and whether the content could effect sales of the original. Most Let's Plays fail under three of the four categories by using the entire game, making money off it, and potentially diminishing sales by revealing the entirety of the content.
The DMCA is a blunt, ugly tool, and Google's handling of it makes it even worse, but if one of these ever gets to an actual court, the Let's Players are almost certainly going to lose.
That hasn't happened largely because Let's Plays are treated like free advertisement by a lot of places, and they aren't willing to shut down the attention, or upset their fans over it, but neither of those have to do with the actual law.
You should blame PDP for poisoning the well then. His high profile scandal forced the hand of advertisers on YT and this racist flap will likely make things worse.
This isn't exactly true. Legally speaking, companies do actually have to consider whether fair use applies to something before issuing at takedown request, so in theory fair use isn't just a reactionary defense of ones own work.It's also worth mentioning that a company doesn't need to prove that you're in violation of Fair Use - the individual needs to prove that Fair Use applies to them. Fair Use isn't a default state. There's a reason why Weird Al gets permission from everybody who owns the original material that he bases his parody songs on even though it would be easy to claim a parody Fair Use clause for his work.
Yup exactly and that's why I have no issues with them doing this.Pewdiepie has the power to change youtube and hes doing it for the worse so its no surprised that advertisers and now game devs want to crack down on it.
He doesnt deserve to make money off any videos at this point with how careless he is in his position of power.
I honestly think it's a pretty cool thing because it has led to me buying games that i wouldn't but I also don't have an issue with them filing a strike with youtube against PDP. Maybe it is something that needs to go to court but I have no doubt in my mind PDP will lose and it will probably change how games are done on youtube if it gets that far.Pubs and devs letting their games being played through in its entirety is always weird to me. Especially the story based games.
Imagine how mother effing racist you have to be that you would risk a several a million dollar a year job playing video games to make sure everyone knows you're a racist.
That's some commitment.
Virtually none of the Let's Play videos meet the standards of Fair Use. That's part of the problem. Fair Use is decided based on a set of issues, including whether the content is educational or commercial, how much of the content is used, whether the content adds value, and whether the content could effect sales of the original. Most Let's Plays fail under three of the four categories by using the entire game, making money off it, and potentially diminishing sales by revealing the entirety of the content.
The DMCA is a blunt, ugly tool, and Google's handling of it makes it even worse, but if one of these ever gets to an actual court, the Let's Players are almost certainly going to lose.
That hasn't happened largely because Let's Plays are treated like free advertisement by a lot of places, and they aren't willing to shut down the attention, or upset their fans over it, but neither of those have to do with the actual law.
Virtually none of the Let's Play videos meet the standards of Fair Use. That's part of the problem. Fair Use is decided based on a set of issues, including whether the content is educational or commercial, how much of the content is used, whether the content adds value, and whether the content could effect sales of the original. Most Let's Plays fail under three of the four categories by using the entire game, making money off it, and potentially diminishing sales by revealing the entirety of the content.
The DMCA is a blunt, ugly tool, and Google's handling of it makes it even worse, but if one of these ever gets to an actual court, the Let's Players are almost certainly going to lose.
That hasn't happened largely because Let's Plays are treated like free advertisement by a lot of places, and they aren't willing to shut down the attention, or upset their fans over it, but neither of those have to do with the actual law.
Has this been tested in actual court? I have seen arguments both ways, but as far as I know it has never been tested in court. And even if it was, it's going to depend a lot on the individual case and how the let's play was done. If it's someone just sitting there playing silently with no camera, it might be judged differently than someone that is parodying the game as it's being played. Saying with certainty that lets plays are or are not not fair use isn't really possible today. It also might depend on the nature of the game. Of course, it might also be difficult to explain this to a judge or jury that might not appreciate the intricacies of whether or not let's plays of Street Fighter V are transformative but Telltale games are not.
I suspect most of them are violations of fair use not but some of them may be.
Would this interfere with freedom of speech in the states for instance?
No.I guess it would also depend on the country the person was streaming from? Would this interfere with freedom of speech in the states for instance? It would be nice to have something like this for online chat. For instance I and another user was online. This user had a psn name with the word black in it. He/she was immediately called the N word because he/she wasn't using a mic from an apparent Caucasian individual. What if devs could use voice recognition technology and revoke a users license from playing? FYI I kicked the user from the group.