I've said it before and I will say it again... Current copyright and patent law is broken, designed for a world where not everyone could release media and inventions actually took a long time to improve on. In a world where anyone can create media with a push of a button and inventions get improved on every other month, the laws themselves hamper the fostering of the arts and the progress of technology rather than help it. Both need to be revamped to take into account the current digital environment.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Massive Gaming YouTube Channels Getting 100s of Flagged Videos Continuously
- Thread starter zakislam
- Start date
Gaming is starting to get really depressing. Between this, microtransactions, and always online, I really think I might just call it quits soon and either stop gaming on anything that isn't a nintendo system or pc, or just be done for good. It's like publishers aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
Google already takes a 45% cut off every video ad on YouTube, period.
If GhostRobo monetizes his videos, Google gets paid. If Nintendo then claims that video and put their own ads on it, Google still gets paid. No matter what Google comes out the winner here.
I see that several Machinima people have been flagged, but what about Polaris? Any of them report it?
Edit: As soon as I post this, Mike B posts about one flagged from Idol. http://t.co/K35VwtRFkB
Edit: As soon as I post this, Mike B posts about one flagged from Idol. http://t.co/K35VwtRFkB
crazyrabbits
Banned
According to a video posted earlier, they hit a guy's parody video with an infringement notice because he used the SMB 1 World 1-1 theme, and when he contested it saying it was fair use, they rejected it and reinstated the claim. Apparently Nintendo is one of the biggest instigators of this algorithm.
But isn't the issue, they are using someone else's work to edit and optimize? If they took a camera and go to a forest an video tape trees and post the video. They still put work in it.
Honestly I never understood it, gamers claim to the Dev/Publishes work. No one is stopping you from posting videos.
The same goes to playing video game competition for money.
Which other jobs people can make money from others people work?
I actually love watching LPs but I understand why the pub/devs are doing this.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
The response I was given for this years ago is that back when they were on the air, guys like Siskel and Ebert actually did have to go through legal channels to get the proper approval for the video footage they use. They were, of course, attached to a major network and had legal team that made sure everything went through all the right channels.
What I was told is that reviews themselves are not subject to copyright infringement. You can film yourself standing in a blank room reading your review outloud and that will be perfectly legal.
It's when you add footage from the media in review that copyright comes in to play, because now you are using copyrighted imagery, copyrighted sound, etc. Fair use is supposed to cover criticism, of course, but the more footage you use the less it counts as fair use (for example, the Mr. Plinkett Star Wars reviews are no longer on Youtube because they're almost as long as the movies themselves and break down everything literally shot for shot).
It sucks, but it's probably that way because up until about 9 years ago there weren't exactly a huge influx of video reviews. You had a few TV shows attached to major networks who could deal with the red tape and nobody else had the equipment or the means of distribution to bother with production.
Of course, things are changing, but the big lumbering copyright holders are slow on the uptake, and Youtube would rather service those with deep pockets than guys like you or me.
There's very little discrimination in a system that's largely automated, so the answer is most likely yes.
In that case the LP should play abandonwares then, those are free to use although under copyright. It is the game that people are drawn to then the player secondly.
For example if I make a game using Maya, I need a commercial license. I created the work from scratch using the tools. I can't download the student version for free to make a commercial game. People are not going to buy my game based on the tools I used but on the content I created. It works the same way here.
Except if people can't afford to make good or a lot of content, viewership goes down = less ads = less money.
So Google stands to lose out here, but I can't imagine it's about the revenue, but rather pressure from large media groups wanting to crack down and think they can enforce things.
As an indie developer going public with a new project soon and down the road expecting to depend on Youtube people to help get the word out, I'm kind of worried some of these Youtubers will die out and that avenue will simply be a lot smaller than it is now. As much as Jim Sterling would have you believe, the games themselves do draw some attention and help make the Youtubers money. Without the draw of popular games, I'm afraid the viewership will fall (along with the financial viability of making Let's Plays). Indie devs like me will have more open policies, sure, but the question is whether Let's Play market can survive on those games alone. I think some good things will come of this move (more exposure for indie games), but I think it will probably be a net negative thing for the industry.
Lambda Pie
Banned
the rise of Dailymotion starts soon...
antikythera
Banned
Make one video of the game footage, and a separate video with your commentary to be played simultaneously. Then you make money for your commentary video and not the game video. You could link to a video doubler site.
Like
smileyforall220
Member
I have no problems with companies taking claims against lets players, and youtube personalities with large chunks of video game content in their video, if they havent had the legal permission from the companies. They are the ones that decided to nest their livelyhood in an "at best" grey area of the DMCA. According to that piece of legal law, fair use is one of the only ways to use content, and only in very short segments, as it says. This has been an issue ramping up for awhile now, and honestly, lets players should be happy they were able to make money for the short period they were, considering they were resting on a base of a legal grey area.
crazyrabbits
Banned
Here are my questions:
1) Is there any guideline that states how much of a content sample (in terms of seconds/minutes) has to run before it crosses the "infringement" threshold?
2) More importantly, does YT's algorithm have a generalized set of guidelines? (based on current anecdotal evidence, that is highly doubtful)
3) Likewise, what is the policy if I play commentary over a silent clip of a video game? Or a trailer? Or use a sample of copyrighted music in a parody video that's flagged for infringement?
i think LPs are similar to running commentary over a movie. You won't get the same experience as watching movie yourself in a theatre, but you probably will never watch it again after getting through this commentary video since you already saw a movie. Videogames are no different. I understand why publishers may want it down.
Garrus Vakarian
Member
Yes, for the love of god. I have literally had to block IP ranges from my firewall to be able to watch videos properly because of stupid cache server issues. Even then the player is fidgety with quality, typically I have to reload a video to force it to go to 1080p, etc.
Seconded
Brilliant idea.
I made some comments about this issue in another thread, but again I don't understand why twitch is exempt from any scrutiny from publishers.
Someone streaming themselves playing a game with commentary is no different than a commentary video uploaded to youtube from the standpoint of publishers. Even from a functional standpoint it is the same.
Twitch people can even add another layer of monetization to their content through subscriptions, so why is it off the radar of publishers? Not to mention being pushed in next-gen consoles.
Just to make things clear though, I fully support what LP'ers are doing, they put effort into making a name for themselves with their commentary, just as they do compiling, editing and uploading their videos. That effort is rewarded with views, and in turn ad revenue.
They're not so much earning money from a game as they are the way they transform it with their own content.
In any case, good to see Seamus (SSOH) is taking it in his stride.
smileyforall220
Member
Here is a guideline for Fair Use in the DMCA:
Now in regards to your questions:
1) There is no hard line that content is judged on, and this is why it is currently a grey area. The law was set up to be flexible to different situations. Law suits are what usually determine the general area of this idea, as it then sets a legal precidence for others to use. In general though the courts look at the amount used in relation to the overall piece. An example from a recent court case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
I believe the amount she used was 29 seconds of infringing content without permission. But again this is on a case by case basis.
2) I do not know the inner workings of youtube's algorithms, but those algorithms are the only reason that youtube still exists and is able to have content. Massive lawsuits were upcoming against youtube, and they would unable to police every single video, so they developed the algorithms as an alternative to the big industries. This also isnt related to fair use neccesarily, but the faultiness of the youtube system.
3) The wikipedia link I posted earlier gives an example of a 29 second video, but again this is case by case basis. I know most people say that youtubers dont have the money for a lawsuit, but this is the only way legal precidence is set in the current legal climate.
Don't misunderstand me, I think the DMCA is outdated in our current world of technology and internet that were barely in their infancy when the DMCA was created. Its just that in the current legal climate, youtubers that use large swaths of content without permission are working in a legal greay area. Hope this helps.
crazyrabbits
Banned
Exactly. I agree with you.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
According to a Nintendo rep, YouTube's ContentID is working exactly as it's intended.
Full response here:
https://plus.google.com/+UltimatePisman/posts/Wfjf6DUDv89
So anyone who thinks Nintendo's "innocent" in this is fooling themselves.
Full response here:
https://plus.google.com/+UltimatePisman/posts/Wfjf6DUDv89
So anyone who thinks Nintendo's "innocent" in this is fooling themselves.
I honestly don't understand why people expected full playthroughs of video games to be considered "fair use." Snippets, sure -- but using a huge portion of someone else's copywritten work for profit seems rather wrong.
As someone else mentioned, though, they could always go the "Rifftracks" route...
As someone else mentioned, though, they could always go the "Rifftracks" route...
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
The main issue is this extends far beyond "full playthroughs of video games" as they're hardly the only types of videos affected
I had the impression it was primarily impacting significant video chunks -- yes, there are false positives (like sanctioned reviews), but I assume those will be reversed.
GameAddict411
Member
this marks the end of youtube, i have been noticing a lot of videos disappearing this week. all of the VGX trailers are being deleted left and right.
NoPiece
Member
That's not exactly true. Content ID is the same system YouTube uses to automatically remove content. The content owner gets to choose whether to monetization, track, or block. Block meaning remove your content, and likely your account). I guarantee you the game publishers would like to nuke all these videos, but are going slowly to avoid backlash. In a year or so, i'll bet most of the videos flagged today will be gone.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
You realize the reversal rests entirely in the hands of the company ContentID assigns it too. They have no incentive to release any claims, even ones that clearly fall under Fair Use.
Beyond that, they have a 30-day period in which to respond. That's 30-days a video isn't making any revenue.
Fox Mulder
Member
I agree, all the buttfucking is getting old.
I have zero interest in corporate sanitized PR for games. I think the people that take time out of their lives to make quality videos and grow an audience with their personalities are vital to gaming as a hobby. You don't see Sega, Nintendo, or Sony really doing anything similar themselves online. But fuck free publicity, shut it down.
ionicbluebird
Member
So what does this mean for share button YouTube uploading?
I see these guys frequently mentioned, but never for sone reason vimeo. Whats is it about dailymotion that everyone mentions them?
Marauder Shields
Member
Porn.
JesseEwiak
Member
Yeah, if I'm not allowed to snark throughout a showing of The Avengers, I'm being held down. Damn you Disney and your corporate sanitized PR for movies!
Dusk Golem
A 21st Century Rockefeller
It should be mentioned Vimeo has a policy on their site against video game videos. Not specifically JUST video games, but if you look at their FAQ, under videos they don't want on their site, video game videos is one of the first mentioned.
I never understand how *full play-throughs* counted as fair use.
Also, isn't it part of the IP holders responsibility to protect its content or else lose control over the rights?
Part of the problem is you have decent and great LPers or reviewers and then the Beavis and Butthead players. There is a difference from someone showing off strategy or reviewing a game, and someone recording the whole game with "heheheh uh ahahahah uh uh uh uehehehee" and claiming it's fair use.
I don't want to see all the content go byebye. There is some good stuff on there, and again I understand some uploaders are actually doing a lot of work to provide the videos. But a lot of it is garbage. The ID system is probably less of a cost than hiring people to patrol videos or the cost of lost revenue or potential lawsuits.
Something will have to change or be more clearly defined soon. That is most likely a certain prediction.
Also, isn't it part of the IP holders responsibility to protect its content or else lose control over the rights?
Part of the problem is you have decent and great LPers or reviewers and then the Beavis and Butthead players. There is a difference from someone showing off strategy or reviewing a game, and someone recording the whole game with "heheheh uh ahahahah uh uh uh uehehehee" and claiming it's fair use.
I don't want to see all the content go byebye. There is some good stuff on there, and again I understand some uploaders are actually doing a lot of work to provide the videos. But a lot of it is garbage. The ID system is probably less of a cost than hiring people to patrol videos or the cost of lost revenue or potential lawsuits.
Something will have to change or be more clearly defined soon. That is most likely a certain prediction.
PotionBleue
Member
Doesn't change anything; so far it only affects people who got money off their videos. If you don't monetize your videos, adds will appear on them, ad revenue will go to the content owners as long as they're OK with it, and that's it.
You joke, but yeah, you are legally allowed to snark throughout a showing of The Avengers AND make money off of it. The difference, in this case, is that what Mike and his pals sell is an MP3 commentary and don't actually include any copyrighted material from the movie itself, which they can do because a movie is an unchanging, non-interactive experience. Of course, the problem games, and only games as opposed to other media, have is that you need the video feed to understand what is being snarked about since, well, games are interactive so each person's experience should theoretically be different.
If your game is ruined for someone by them watching somebody else play it, it ain't much of a game. It's a movie.
Yep. PC pretty much exclusively for me from now on. I'll get a PS4 after a few price drops for a couple games, but my online gaming will be on PC. Open systems have enough shit to deal with, but at least you are not locked into the butt fucking.
Subscribed and following the news very closely now.To play devil's advocate.. if I'm a 50-year-old video game executive and someone told me a 16-year-old kid is making a six-figure salary off showing video clips of my product on YouTube, I would probably want to do something about it too.
There is more to this than just the perspective of a gamer. We all love watching these videos and it will suck if a lot of them go away, but don't act like content creators don't have their own take on this.
Yes, YouTube gameplay gives a game exposure, but maybe there should be a line drawn about showing a complete playthrough of a game.
There is more to this than just the perspective of a gamer. We all love watching these videos and it will suck if a lot of them go away, but don't act like content creators don't have their own take on this.
Yes, YouTube gameplay gives a game exposure, but maybe there should be a line drawn about showing a complete playthrough of a game.
Yeah, if you are a bitter old man you might hate a kid making money.
Kadayi
Banned
Please, plenty of games have linear narratives. In fact it's the most prevalent form of ending because multiplicity is damn hard to achieve.
Notice I said nothing about linear narrative. If the gameplay attached to the narrative is not worth playing, that is the problem.
jakonovski
Member
Considering all the confusion from developer/publisher side as well, I'm thinking this system is wide open to abuse by third parties. So it's tyrannical and incompetent. Oh well, ell oh ell.
edit: Also, the GAF backlash exhibited by who I presume are our younger and more impulsive members, is a combination of salt, bile and jealousy. This whole thing was a business and a livelihood for many people. Have some decency, just because you didn't have what it takes to become a professional Youtuber, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it.
edit: Also, the GAF backlash exhibited by who I presume are our younger and more impulsive members, is a combination of salt, bile and jealousy. This whole thing was a business and a livelihood for many people. Have some decency, just because you didn't have what it takes to become a professional Youtuber, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it.
Well, they didn't draw a line. They gradient filled the entire fucking thing. Content Creators can go fuck themselves, they already have the backing of EXTREMELY generous copyright law.
daninthemix
Member
Surely it's got to end up with some sort of revenue sharing system.
The commentators need something to make it worth the effort they put in, and the game publishers need something to keep them sweet.
You could argue till the cows come home as to whether LPs generate additional exposure and therefore sales, or whether they decrease sales because some viewers no longer feel the need to purchase the game.
The commentators need something to make it worth the effort they put in, and the game publishers need something to keep them sweet.
You could argue till the cows come home as to whether LPs generate additional exposure and therefore sales, or whether they decrease sales because some viewers no longer feel the need to purchase the game.