Support NeoGAF

[SteveWD40]

Great video and pretty much sums up my feelings on it. The cynic in me (and at 34 having worked in corporate finance for 15 years I am pretty fucking cynical) knew this sort of thing would happen at some point. The minute people start to make REAL money someone wants a cut.

This will probably lead into "well, if you want to use our game to make your content we want 30%" or some other form of blackmail.

As for the "it's not a sustainable income" guy, well perhaps not for most, but if you get to PewdiePie or whatever he is called levels, or even Totalbiscuit, you can make enough to retire on at about 35 I would guess. We are talking 6-7 or perhaps even 8 figure income depending on who you listen to.

 

[JaxJag]

I can't help but not feel all that bad for people like Boogie and Angry Joe. First off, the internet is a pretty big place, if they have a large enough following then they can create their own websites, and their viewers will go with them.

Secondly, and this is mainly Angry Joe, I just hear a bunch of whining. Whining that makes me feel like most of these YouTube content creators believe they're more important than they really are.

 

[SteveWD40]

I can't help but not feel all that bad for people like Boogie

As he said, he is fine, he Vlogs only, no footage from games is used.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

I can't help but not feel all that bad for people like Boogie and Angry Joe. First off, the internet is a pretty big place, if they have a large enough following then they can create their own websites, and their viewers will go with them.

Secondly, and this is mainly Angry Joe, I just hear a bunch of whining. Whining that makes me feel like most of these YouTube content creators believe they're more important than they really are.

An interview Angry Joe had with a game developer was flagged. How is that okay? It'd be like the entire GAF forum being flagged because we're discussing videogames and nothing more. It's absolutely absurd.

The principle is this: They're monetizing videos that provide free(no cost to them) advertising and information. They are trying to get paid for other people's advertisements.

This, along with the "You can't unlock phones in the US anymore" law that just passed, is BS. Corporations are squeezing the life out of any avenue of expression they can. I don't give a shit if you don't like Boogie or Angry Joe or YoutubePersonality6492, but you need to be aware of the precedent that this kind of careless hammer-dropping introduces.

 

[Ghostofst4rm4n]

My take that no one cares about...

Youtubers create content, Kim Kardashian doesn't.

Kim Kardashian is rich. You tubers should be richer.

The end.

Quoting because I wholeheartedly agree.

And also because I love your avatar.

 

[Mael]

Reviews should be fine under fair use, there's enough precedent to show that it can (although there's cases where that is NOT the case I think).
the thing with fair use is that it's decided by a court, if you don't go before the judge well your hoster can do whatever the fuck he likes.

Heck why hasn't there been youtubers suing youtube over this change I have no idea, heck that's technically what class action should be for, no?
I don't mean they go sue youtube to get money, they go sue youtube to force youtube to change the rules.

That's the thing I don't get, if your only income is threaten by an unilateral change that you think is illegal you should be able to prove that what they're doing is against the law, no?

 

[TheForceWithin]

An interview Angry Joe had with a game developer was flagged. How is that okay? It'd be like the entire GAF forum being flagged because we're discussing videogames and nothing more. It's absolutely absurd.

The principle is this: They're monetizing videos that provide free(no cost to them) advertising and information. They are trying to get paid for other people's advertisements.

This, along with the "You can't unlock phones in the US anymore" law that just passed, is BS. Corporations are squeezing the life out of any avenue of expression they can. I don't give a shit if you don't like Boogie or Angry Joe or YoutubePersonality6492, but you need to be aware of the precedent that this kind of careless hammer-dropping introduces.

Between this Youtube disaster and the TPP and other goings on makes me think this is a massive co-ordinate attack by big corporate interest groups to try and squeeze out any little guy and keep the masses subservient to their tune of outdated "old-media" entertainment business models. To keep all profits and money flowing to them. They have been trying to do it for a while now but right now after many failed attempts it seems like they mean business.

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

Reviews should be fine under fair use, there's enough precedent to show that it can (although there's cases where that is NOT the case I think).
the thing with fair use is that it's decided by a court, if you don't go before the judge well your hoster can do whatever the fuck he likes.

Heck why hasn't there been youtubers suing youtube over this change I have no idea, heck that's technically what class action should be for, no?
I don't mean they go sue youtube to get money, they go sue youtube to force youtube to change the rules.

That's the thing I don't get, if your only income is threaten by an unilateral change that you think is illegal you should be able to prove that what they're doing is against the law, no?

Angry Joe said it best in his rant about the new Content ID system:
They're only people, not big corporations like EA or Ubisoft.
We know them because they're "from the Internet, for the Internet" basically and we like the content they create.
Of course, if they all got together and filed a lawsuit as a group they could do more, but they'd probably still be significantly smaller than YouTube or Google.

It's a good thing already that game developers seem to be on the side of the LPers and reviewers and such, but that's only extra work for them to fill up a hole created by YouTube and that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

[robertsan21]

Content ID is a new content identification system that was put in effect on YouTube a few days ago. It takes videos (especially popular ones with 1mil+ views) and looks for anything video or audio related that could be copyright protected (music, sound effects, movie snippets, cutscenes, etc.). If so the video is automatically claimed by the respectful owner of the material, but more often than not it's not a legit claim because it falls under the law of Fair Use in the US (and comparable laws in other countries).

Angry Joe et al COULD have known about this for some time but that doesn't mean they could have done anything AGAINST it.

Many publishers say that it's okay to record videos, some of them (like Nintendo for example) have something against these videos getting monetized, others don't (like EA), and even others (like Devolver Digital) even ENCOURAGE monetizing these videos of their games, because they see it's (for them) a free form of advertisement for their game.

There are a few select companies though which don't want recordings of their games on YouTube. That's okay, if the Content ID would work (which it doesn't) these companies had the right to take the video down by claiming it beforehand.

But the Content ID system is claiming it AUTOMATICALLY for them and neither the creators of the videos nor the companies themselves have a real say about what video should legitimately be claimed and which shouldn't.
That's the big problem with that new system. That and YouTube saying that all of the claims made so far would be legit claims, which is just a steaming pile of fucking bullshit.

ok great, thanks.

So once the system is working as it should, the likes of Angry joe and other game reviewers wont have a problem with what they are doing currently, unless they review a game from a publisher that does not allow anything to be shown on YT?

Hopefully YT can get this system to work as it should fast.

 

[Evolution_1ne]

100% with him.
shame on the people cheering for other peoples careers to be ruined

stating a fact = cheering?

I don't like that this is happening, I wish these people could keep doing what they're doing, and in a perfect world they would be, but this isn't a perfect world, and these Corps. don't owe these people a living. No one told them to make this their primary source of income, and there is no law stating this is all they can do. It sucks but so does the world

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

Wow, that was really good.

He's right, it is easy to say "They should have seen this coming" as you feel smugly superior going to a job that you hate every day. Congratulations on being "right" without putting anything on the line. What matters now is that these people are in a tough situation and anyone in a tough situation doesn't deserve ridicule on top of that.

 

[wildfire]

The people yelling "get a real job" are jealous beyond words. They are mad because they are working jobs they hate and wish they could make money doing YouTube videos about games.

Considering the statistics are already out there about how many people hate their jobs this is very much on point. It's good that some people who do hate their jobs aren't so petty as to attack youtubers but rest are just scum.

 

[remnant]

My take that no one cares about...

Youtubers create content, Kim Kardashian doesn't.

Kim Kardashian is rich. You tubers should be richer.

The end.

Don't lie to yourself. Kim Kardashian creates a shitton of content.

stating a fact = cheering?

I don't like that this is happening, I wish these people could keep doing what they're doing, and in a perfect world they would be, but this isn't a perfect world, and these Corps. don't owe these people a living. No one told them to make this their primary source of income, and there is no law stating this is all they can do. It sucks but so does the world

This isn't an either/or situation. You can work with IP holders in a way that benefits both sides. One of the problems Content ID introduces is it takes that option off the table. it's essentially the third party moderator hitting the nuclear option against one side every time.

 

[Mael]

Angry Joe said it best in his rant about the new Content ID system:
They're only people, not big corporations like EA or Ubisoft.
We know them because they're "from the Internet, for the Internet" basically and we like the content they create.
Of course, if they all got together and filed a lawsuit as a group they could do more, but they'd probably still be significantly smaller than YouTube or Google.

It's a good thing already that game developers seem to be on the side of the LPers and reviewers and such, but that's only extra work for them to fill up a hole created by YouTube and that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

This is just an excuse to do nothing at all and get the problem solved by itself.
Seriously if you get fired from your job and you think it's wongly done you go before a judge even if you're against Bank of America or the government.
Youtube TOS can say whatever the fuck it wants and youtubers will be left to dry when they complain.
And unless I was mistaken a lawsuit is not decided by just how big you are.
Really if the only thing they do is complain on youtube and do nothing else, they'll be fucked anyway.
If the issue is big enough they can actually use that size to go against them before a judge or something.
After all according to them they're actually being robbed, if they can't defend their case before a judge then Google was right from the start.

Don't lie to yourself. Kim Kardashian creates a shitton of content.

Who is this fucking Kardashian and did she ever do to be famous?

 

[GeoGonzo]

Good video, couldn't agree more. I still don't know how to feel about this whole issue but people being assholes aren't helping anyone.

 

[Roland1979]

There's no such thing as a real job. A job is a job.

Yes i don't get what people are about. It's supply and demand. If there is a demand for it and you can supply it then it's a job, whether it's a service, product is somewhat irrelevant. What's even more irrelevant is how much work you put in it. You don't get paid for how much you put in it. Sometimes hard work cost a lot of time. Time is something you can get paid for. but no one will measure the amount you're sweating.

Another thing is telling people that their job is not stable. First off what is the measurement to determine how stable a job is? But let's say it is. Who the fuck are you to feel the need to tell people that their job isn't stable enough? The nerve. I bet those people don't complain when they pay for their burger, since no one is underpaid in their stable jobs there. And maybe people do save up from their content earnings. Criticizing is easy. Making quality content is not.

And unless I was mistaken a lawsuit is not decided by just how big you are.

That's often what it comes down to if you're trying to tackle huge corporations. Not only do they have a army of lawyers, they can drag out a single case so incredibly long you could not afford to keep processing. You would be financially ruined halfway through. And if you won they'll appeal if they can and do it all over again.

 

[Mael]

Criticizing is easy. Making quality content is not.

Funnily enough that's what IP holders are telling youtubers right now....

 

[remnant]

This is just an excuse to do nothing at all and get the problem solved by itself.
Seriously if you get fired from your job and you think it's wongly done you go before a judge even if you're against Bank of America or the government.
Youtube TOS can say whatever the fuck it wants and youtubers will be left to dry when they complain.
And unless I was mistaken a lawsuit is not decided by just how big you are.
Really if the only thing they do is complain on youtube and do nothing else, they'll be fucked anyway.
If the issue is big enough they can actually use that size to go against them before a judge or something.
After all according to them they're actually being robbed, if they can't defend their case before a judge then Google was right from the start

Another potentially crazy aspect of this story that no one is bringing up are the MCN that essential house a lot of the major gaming channels, including Joe and Biscuit.. Part of the original pitch MCN like Polaris and machinima gave was that they would defend them against youtub and spurious content flags. Now this has happened and they have seemingly done nothing for their affiliate channels,

Spoiler

but some are protecting their managed channels, hence why TB has not been flagged while a guy like Joe is

I doubt we hear anything like a lawsuit until one of the major MCNs make a move.

Who is this fucking Kardashian and did she ever do to be famous?

Just like a job, there is no clear fast rule that determines who gets fame and who doesn't. "Creating value" is not an argument you want to make against people since the rules constantly change.

 

[TerryWogan]

Yes i don't get what people are about. It's supply and demand. If there is a demand for it and you can supply it then it's a job, whether it's a service, product is somewhat irrelevant. What's even more irrelevant is how much work you put in it. You don't get paid for how much you put in it. Sometimes hard work cost a lot of time. Time is something you can get paid for. but no one will measure the amount you're sweating.

Another thing is telling people that their job is not stable. First off what is the measurement to determine how stable a job is? But let's say it is. Who the fuck are you to feel the need to tell people that their job isn't stable enough? The nerve. I bet those people don't complain when they pay for their burger, since no one is underpaid in their stable jobs there. And maybe people do save up from their content earnings. Criticizing is easy. Making quality content is not.

On the money! People say the same thing about professional sports people. Getting paid millions to kick, handle or whack a ball around. Blah-blah. Point is, they're paid to do what they do by businesses. Successful businesses that provide entertainment to millions of customers who are more than happy to pay. Simple as that.

It's the same thing here. These people are providing a service that people want. That people are calling YouTubers "entitled" blows me away. I'll say it again - THEY'RE PROVIDING A SERVICE THAT PEOPLE WANT. They are entitled to be paid. But they've had their money arbitrarily cut off by an overnight change from Google. The demand is still there for their services. How is it fair that they're no longer getting paid?

 

[Alienous]

Seriously, what is anyone actually doing to combat this?

Not to offend anyone, but there's a lot of inaction going on. Where's the movement? Where are the YouTuber's who are supporting those who want their content supported, and ignoring those who don't?

Seriously, if the video game YouTube personalities worked together, this would be repealed. It benefits no-one, and is just publishers and developers exercising control because they can. But either it ceases to exist, benefiting not a single person, or it continues benefiting all parties involved.

But it isn't up to me to make that fact heard. It's up to the Joe's and CGR's of the YouTube community to work together to make themselves heard, and to make sure it's understood that it remains how it is, or it does not exist. Certainly not restricted. Publishers will back down.

 

[remnant]

Seriously, what is anyone actually doing to combat this?

Not to offend anyone, but there's a lot of inaction going on. Where's the movement? Where are the YouTuber's who are supporting those who want their content supported, and ignoring those who don't?

Seriously, if the video game YouTube personalities worked together, this would be repealed. It benefits no-one, and is just publishers and developers exercising control because they can. But either it ceases to exist, benefiting not a single person, or it continues benefiting all parties involved.

But it isn't up to me to make that fact heard. It's up to the Joe's and CGR's of the YouTube community to work together to make themselves heard, and to make sure it's understood that it remains how it is, or it does not exist. Certainly not restricted. Publishers will back down.

No one is going to make a move until the MCN do something.

 

[Mael]

Another potentially crazy aspect of this story that no one is bringing up are the MCN that essential house a lot of the major gaming channels, including Joe and Biscuit.. Part of the original pitch MCN like Polaris and machinima gave was that they would defend them against youtub and spurious content flags. Now this has happened and they have seemingly done nothing for their affiliate channels,

Spoiler

but some are protecting their managed channels, hence why TB has not been flagged while a guy like Joe is

I doubt we hear anything like a lawsuit until one of the major MCNs make a move.

That would be an interesting development...

Just like a job, there is no clear fast rule that determines who gets fame and who doesn't. "Creating value" is not an argument you want to make against people since the rules constantly change.

I don't dispute that, I'm just asking who the fuck is she!

That's often what it comes down to if you're trying to tackle huge corporations. Not only do they have a army of lawyers, they can drag out a single case so incredibly long you could not afford to keep processing. You would be financially ruined halfway through. And if you won they'll appeal if they can and do it all over again.

Well might as well roll over & die in this case because there's nothing to do then.
If you give up on the mere chance of going against an nondescript army of lawyers...
This leave the whole community of youtubers at the mercy of IP holders and their willingness to allow you to do something a court may have granted you.
At this point since youtubers have done nothing but complain on youtube the advice to get a real job sounds more like an advice than a slight

 

[Sean*O]

What makes one job any better than another you fuckwits? Unless people saying that are curing cancer then they best STFU with their get a real job slights.

Agree with Boogie that this system needs to be fixed, and that it sucks for those who've built their livelihood around the current framework.

 

[snap0212]

I agree with a lot of what he says in the video. He's a great guy and I hope his videos continue to do well. People being assholes is not helping anyone at all, he's absolutely right about that. Also a great personality.

Though I find this video also shows kind of what's wrong with the whole YouTube scene. YouTubers have to stop appealing to morals completely. They might gather some support from the fans, but they have to act the way a business should instead; that means, stopping to complain/whine about situations and doing something about it.

The fact that video reviews or interviews get flagged is absolute bullshit and shouldn't happen. There's something seriously wrong with YouTube's robots and that stuff needs to be fixed immediately. I cannot believe the incompetence here.

However, YouTubers need to get in line with the law. No matter how shitty they think the law is, building a business on a ground that shaky is an incredibly stupid idea. There's no place here to whine about how publishers are unfair, how they wish things were done and whatnot. Get together and establish a case for yourself; don't just do things the way you want to do them because they make you money and seem fair to yourself – that's just stupid. Don't stream full Let's Plays and monetize the videos because you assume it's okay or because you think it falls under Fair Use. As it is now, some of these people (Let's Players, for example) are making money in a legal grey area and they should not be surprised about it potentially backfiring. I think complaints about not being able to make money anymore are wrong and unjustified.

The whole argument about „free exposure“ is something that pisses me off personally, because I've had people use that argument in talks with me when they wanted to use photography of mine. You better not tell me that you're not going to pay me and all I get is free exposure. You're going to license that shit because you're using it to increase the money in your pockets.

Arguing Fair Use is complicated here and absolutely nothing that is established, at least not when we're talking about Let's Plays. I think some random layman arguing that some law somehow protects him is a bad idea and YouTubers should stay away from doing that. Get a lawyer and a definite answer, because the copyright law is absolutely not on your side unless it is 100% - that's how it works here.

No one should lose their job and losing a job probably sucks really bad, but establishing a business thinking it complies with all the laws and regulations because you, as a layman who basically knows nothing, thinks so... well, it's a bad idea and increases the chances of your business going poof immensely.

 

[Oidisco]

please I am so confused over all of this, can someone just explain to me in the most easy way possible?

what is Content ID and why is it there on YT now?

Have not the angry joes, boogie and piediepie know about this months a head?

if publishers say its ok to record their videos, why cant youtube just not include that company in the Content ID program?

This video explains it perfectly. It goes through exactly what it is, how it works and some of the difficulties it can cause problems for people who monetise videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkbktDbEu7Y

 

[Roland1979]

At this point since youtubers have done nothing but complain on youtube the advice to get a real job sounds more like an advice than a slight

It certainly wasn't brought as advice. Just like the 99.9% of the endless amount of times it has been said before. "Get a real job!" was never about advice. It was about spite and jealousy.

 

[Dusk Golem]

I already made my move, made all my videos private and have moved onto another site. If a lot of people did this, YouTube would take notice. Better if there was some protest motion, but I have a feeling a lot of people wouldn't follow a movement for fear or uncertainty or something.

 

[Amused]

There's work involved into let's plays, I will not deny that. However you shouldn't be doing it for the money anyway (note of reference: I feel this way about the game journalism sector as a whole). It should be a hobby, not a livelyhood.
You're raising awareness of the game, but so what? Professional audio and video editors get paid respectable sums to do the same thing. Go into marketing. Hell, I could even make a case that mainstream "reviews" do more good for the game, as if they contain legitimate criticism (which they do once in a while) they can help the developer grow.

Would it be nice to get a small compensation for your time? Yes. Should it be a full-time job? Not in the slightest.

Why is it so important for you to keep the status quo? For everyone to play by the rules made by the "old content creators", in a world where doing marketing for a big companies under their guidelines is better and more legit than delivering a raw, unbiased impressions. Why would we want that, when we know we could get so much more?

The fact that it is possible to make money without being part of the industury is great, both for the content creators and for the consumers. Getting information from people I can relate to has great value to me, and to many others. Will a lot of these people loose their innocense if/as they start to make more and more money? Of course. Others will come and take their place.

To me, and many others, the content created just as, and in some cases more valuable than the content created by marketing temas at the big companies. That being the case, I see no reason why this shouldn't be a legitemate choice as to what you choose to do for a living.

 

[Calabi]

They money either goes to these individuals who are making a product that people want, or it goes to the already rich companies whom are sitting back and doing nothing, just rent seeking.

 

[ReadingRambo]

My take that no one cares about...

Youtubers create content, Kim Kardashian doesn't.

Kim Kardashian is rich. You tubers should be richer.

The end.

Oh Kim Kardashian definitely made some content......

 

[excowboy]

His closing comments:
"I know its fun to be an asshole. Just... don't."

Can't really argue with that!

 

[TerryWogan]

There's work involved into let's plays, I will not deny that. However you shouldn't be doing it for the money anyway (note of reference: I feel this way about the game journalism sector as a whole). It should be a hobby, not a livelyhood.
You're raising awareness of the game, but so what? Professional audio and video editors get paid respectable sums to do the same thing. Go into marketing. Hell, I could even make a case that mainstream "reviews" do more good for the game, as if they contain legitimate criticism (which they do once in a while) they can help the developer grow.

Would it be nice to get a small compensation for your time? Yes. Should it be a full-time job? Not in the slightest.

This is one of the most ridiculous blanket comments I've ever read.

Who are you to say what should and shouldn't be a full-time job? How dare you undermine an entire industry, dismissing it as something that should be "just a hobby". Absolutely ludicrous. People want to read games journalism. They want to view YouTube gaming content. These people provide a service. It makes money. It's supply and demand.

Stupendously small-minded comment. "Go into marketing." Wow. Genuinely amazed people think like this. Go into marketing! Incredible.

 

[Gbraga]

Would it hurt youtube more if instead of fighting it they all just went somewhere else?

I understand that it's not easy to make a million people follow you somewhere else, but youtube is making it really easy for them with all the recent bullshit like Google+ and now this.

 

[Nostremitus]

Oh... But I want to let someone else pour thousands of man hours into a multimillion dollar project and then freely use their property for my own financial gain without their consent.

Let me ask you a question. Do you ever see film reviews that play the entire movie and are essentially just viewer commentary?

No, it's copyright infringement. Somehow it's ok for games, though?

I know, I know.

"But games aren't like movies, you play them..."

Do you seriously think this negates the fact that game development involves paying writers, voice actors, and mo cap actors whose entire performances are being streamed without the Rights Holder's consent? Not only that, but even 2D side scrollers are created by artists who painstakingly rendered everything that is seen. That's copyrighted material that you shouldn't feel entitled to use for your personal financial gain.

Would it hurt youtube more if instead of fighting it they all just went somewhere else?

I understand that it's not easy to make a million people follow you somewhere else, but youtube is making it really easy for them with all the recent bullshit like Google+ and now this.

People had the same argument when Youtube cracked down on movie and television show uploads.


At the end of the day pirating someone else's work is still pirating, no matter how you'd like to dress it up.

Before anyone else asks, distributing or using someone else's work without their consent is pirating. Even more so if you do it for financial gain.

 

[R_thanatos]

Oh... But I want to let someone else pour thousands of man hours into a multimillion dollar project and then freely use their property for my own financial gain without their consent.

Let me ask you a question. Do you ever see film reviews that play the entire movie and are essentially just viewer commentary?

No, it's copyright infringement. Somehow it's ok for games, though?

I know, I know.

"But games aren't like movies, you play them..."

Do you seriously think this negates the fact that game development involves paying writers, voice actors, and mo cap actors whose entire performances are being streamed without the Rights Holder's consent? Not only that, but even 2D side scrollers are created by artists who painstakingly rendered everything that is seen. That's copyrighted material that you shouldn't feel entitled to use for your personal financial gain.

Listen , i'll just say this.

When people are using promotionnal content , i repeat promotionnal content in their review as mean to enhance their point , where is the copyright infringment ?
Where is the copyright infringment where someone is taking a 10 sec sequence from a cutscene or a gameplay sequence as part of a review ?

Think this is stealing ??? Really ? How are critics ( whatever media ) would be allowed to work if they can't even use the product they are critising on screen ? Just show the box from far away ?

 

[Fair Trial]

Eh.....

I am. You know, fuck it. I'll admit it. I'm jealous of PewDiePie.

First off the guy is rich beyond his wildest dreams and he got that way by doing something he loves. Seriously.

His life is very likely to be quite exceptional too. When this whole youtube thing is over and its all forgotten he'll have more freedom and money than he'll know what to do with.

But beyond that, he really isnt a bad guy. The guy he plays 'on tv' isnt the guy he really is, for sure. All it takes is for you to watch some of his more personal videos to know that.

Me and Pewds made different career choices. He found something that worked and BECAME it. I found the francis/rage thing and used it but decided that wasnt all I was going to be.

Pewds is rewarded with what he wants. Fame, money, power.

I'm rewarded with what I wanted. Some fame, some money, and a lot of peace of mind.

I wish I was the number 1 person on youtube for doing what I love. Instead I'm like number 400 or so. I'll take it, but I'd be lying if I didnt admit I wished I was number 1... though I clearly wouldnt be able to pay the price Pewds did.

Power?

 

[ExFalsoQuodlibet]

Do you seriously think this negates the fact that game development involves paying writers, voice actors, and mo cap actors whose entire performances are being streamed without the Rights Holder's consent? Not only that, but even 2D side scrollers are created by artists who painstakingly rendered everything that is seen. That's copyrighted material that you shouldn't feel entitled to use for your personal financial gain.

We are at the point of covering every possible man's creation with the filthy blanket of copyright, and a lot people are so accustomed to the concept of intellectual property that they basically take it for granted, never really discussing why something should be copyrighted.

You want to make money out of your creations? Then sell them. Those people that made the mocap and the voice acting have been already PAID for their job, they have the intellectual and economic advantage of being able to do it in the first place, and thei did it in fact.

A streamer's job (it's a job if there's demand for it, period) is different, but it happens that something of those other things, animations, music, voice acting et cetera, must enter in the streamer's product because without that there would be no product in the first place. The twisted idea behind intellectual property is that if I create something I somehow get an exclusive right to use that something, but that's not how the universe works: every work is derivative, every work is transformative, everything is a remix. Should the voice actor pay his/her voice acting teacher every single time he/she makes a performance? Because it was the teacher to "create" that ability to voice act in the actor, and the voice actor is acting like a vessel, transmitting that very ability to the masses.

If I create something, and sell it, throwing it into the wild, and get the money for the job, there's no logical rational reason why some else, which does a different job than mine, which spends tens of hours a week to make his/her product, should give me money. Money for what? Without that person that money didn't even exist, and that person's work didn't actually steal any money from me, I get the same as before, so why, WHY?

 

[TerryWogan]

We are at the point of covering every possible man's creation with the filthy blanket of copyright, and a lot people are so accustomed to the concept of intellectual property that they basically take it for granted, never really discussing why something should be copyrighted.

You want to make money out of your creations? Then sell them. Those people that made the mocap and the voice acting have been already PAID for their job, they have the intellectual and economic advantage of being able to do it in the first place, and thei did it in fact.

A streamer's job (it's a job if there's demand for it, period) is different, but it happens that something of those other things, animations, music, voice acting et cetera, must enter in the streamer's product because without that there would be no product in the first place. The twisted idea behind intellectual property is that if I create something I somehow get an exclusive right to use that something, but that's not how the universe works: every work is derivative, every work is transformative, everything is a remix. Should the voice actor pay his/her voice acting teacher every single time he/she makes a performance? Because it was the teacher to "create" that ability to voice act in the actor, and the voice actor is acting like a vessel, transmitting that very ability to the masses.

If I create something, and sell it, throwing it into the wild, and get the money for the job, there's no logical rational reason why some else, which does a different job than mine, which spends tens of hours a week to make his/her product, should give me money. Money for what? Without that person that money didn't even exist, and that person's work didn't actually steal any money from me, I get the same as before, so why, WHY?

Excellent post. This ought to be the de facto quote post in response to the copyright argument from now on.

 

[Ziltoid]

Think this is stealing ??? Really ? How are critics ( whatever media ) would be allowed to work if they can't even use the product they are critising on screen ? Just show the box from far away ?

That argument is aimed at Lets Plays. Personally I think that Lets Plays are fair use as well, as long as the person doing it adds his/her own thing to it, i.e. commentary.

 

[Mael]

It certainly wasn't brought as advice. Just like the 99.9% of the endless amount of times it has been said before. "Get a real job!" was never about advice. It was about spite and jealousy.

I'm saying if the only thing youtubers are doing right now is upload even more vids on youtube raging against the change then "get a real job" really is the best thing people could tell them.
The situation isn't going to solve itself.
No one is apparently willing to go to court to sort this out.
Youtube would be sued to the end if they didn't implement something anyway, they protected themselves while providing a service.
the general population clearly don't give a shit.
Youtubers keep posting vids and that's it.
If no one do anything nothing will change.
If you want to push for fair use, you better be ready to challenge the definition in court anyway.
As it is youtube doesn't want to be sued so anything close to copyright infrigement is flagged as such.
You have a problem?
Take it to youtube, sue them or something.
All these vids by well intentioned youtubers are really farts in the wind.

 

[Shard]

I already made my move, made all my videos private and have moved onto another site. If a lot of people did this, YouTube would take notice. Better if there was some protest motion, but I have a feeling a lot of people wouldn't follow a movement for fear or uncertainty or something.

It isn't that simple for a lot of people because a lot of these Youtubers are actually under contract to the MCS.

 

[JimmyRustler]

We are at the point of covering every possible man's creation with the filthy blanket of copyright, and a lot people are so accustomed to the concept of intellectual property that they basically take it for granted, never really discussing why something should be copyrighted.

How about turning that around and say that we are at a point where everything possible is turned into money. Hell, people used to do lets plays for shits and giggles once. I didn't even know for a long time that they're making money with it.

I'm not cheering at these guys loosing their job but it's their own fault. They should have started making money with this. It was doomed to backfire one day.

 

[hoserx]

Man, I really starting to enjoy Boogie's videos. My job is completely unrelated to video games but it involves talking to thousands of people every day....and I really appreciate and respect the way he communicates.

 

[Shard]

Okay when content holders themselves are getting flagged for their own content that they own and hold the right to, like Paradox Interactive did for its Europa Universalis 4 trailer a few days then it is an indefensibly flawed system.

 

[Mael]

We are at the point of covering every possible man's creation with the filthy blanket of copyright, and a lot people are so accustomed to the concept of intellectual property that they basically take it for granted, never really discussing why something should be copyrighted.

You want to make money out of your creations? Then sell them. Those people that made the mocap and the voice acting have been already PAID for their job, they have the intellectual and economic advantage of being able to do it in the first place, and thei did it in fact.

A streamer's job (it's a job if there's demand for it, period) is different, but it happens that something of those other things, animations, music, voice acting et cetera, must enter in the streamer's product because without that there would be no product in the first place. The twisted idea behind intellectual property is that if I create something I somehow get an exclusive right to use that something, but that's not how the universe works: every work is derivative, every work is transformative, everything is a remix. Should the voice actor pay his/her voice acting teacher every single time he/she makes a performance? Because it was the teacher to "create" that ability to voice act in the actor, and the voice actor is acting like a vessel, transmitting that very ability to the masses.

If I create something, and sell it, throwing it into the wild, and get the money for the job, there's no logical rational reason why some else, which does a different job than mine, which spends tens of hours a week to make his/her product, should give me money. Money for what? Without that person that money didn't even exist, and that person's work didn't actually steal any money from me, I get the same as before, so why, WHY?

If you create content based on someone else's properties you're at risk of this kind of stuff happening.

Why do you think shows usually used fake names for products and everything?
Duff wasn't used instead of Bud because they thought the name was funnier.
You can't do anything you want because "lol internet"

Okay when content holders themselves are getting flagged for their own content that they own and hold the right to, like Paradox Interactive did for its Europa Universalis 4 trailer a few days then it is an indefensibly flawed system.

Yeah the system is like a sledgehammer to get a mouse.

 

[Dusk Golem]

It isn't that simple for a lot of people because a lot of these Youtubers are actually under contract to the MCS.

No, I know, I was under contract too. My two-year contract expires on January 10th, and I am going to see if YouTube does anything to change things by then. If not, going full-on off YouTube and off to elsewhere. Have notified my partner manager though.

 

[DedValve]

I can respect this post.

But personally? If all that comes from acting like a complete idiot (moreso than the average Youtube gimmick) for a bunch of middle schoolers....I'll pass.

not much different than an actor acting like an idiot for a bunch of children.

 

[ExFalsoQuodlibet]

How about turning that around and say that we are at a point where everything possible is turned into money. Hell, people used to do lets plays for shits and giggles once. I didn't even know for a long time that they're making money with it.

I'm not cheering at these guys loosing their job but it's their own fault. They should have started making money with this. It was doomed to backfire one day.

They are making money because of advertisement, it's how advertisement works: we could argue about the fact that advertisement is fucked up, but that's another topic, the point is as long as as they produce some value and there's demand for that value, they being payed for what they do is a natural consequence of how economics work.

If you create content based on someone else's properties you're at risk of this kind of stuff happening.

I'm exactly arguing against that.

Please define what "based on someone else's property" means.

Also, tell me what exactly "property" is, because I personally consider property as something I have and others don't, and the moment someone else has it, I don't have it anymore.

Why do you think shows usually used fake names for products and everything? Duff wasn't used instead of Bud because they thought the name was funnier. You can't do anything you want because "lol internet".

And what on earth that means? Also, I can't do anything I want if what I want is unethical, offensive or against the law, but while being unethical and offensive are pretty much universal things, the "law" is arbitrary, it's made up, democratically (in the best cases) made up but made up, and can be argued against, and I'm doing it for what concerns copyright.

Going back to your beer example, what is the reason why in a show I couldn't use a bottle of Bud? Does it mean that boogie cannot drink Mountain Dew in his shows, or at least cover the brand and don't talk about it? Who's gaining from this and who's losing? And is this a matter on which the public money should be spent?

My point is exactly that the very concept of copyright and IP is wrong. I'm not telling that I think I should be able to resell, for example, a movie or a game exactly as it is, thus replacing myself to the original producer/seller, effectively stealing money from him, nor I think I should be able to sell my stuff under a registered, active trademark that I don't own, thus deceiving people in believing I am someone I'm not: I'm talking about transformative work, because EVERYTHING IS A REMIX, if I create something that has a starting point in some other work, but for another reason, with a different purpose, making a completely different product, there's no reason why I should give the money I earned to someone else.

On the "everything is a remix" topic I strongly suggest, if you didn't do, to watch THIS series that kind of explains it in a very slow and simple way.

I also suggest to read THIS: it's an old story, but it's still really relevant. I'd suggest to really think about the "Where would you draw the line?" part at the very end.

Also, there's plenty of literature about the fact that the concepts of copyright and intellectual property are damaging to all industries and to human's progress and cultural evolution: a good starting point is THIS book.

 

[Mael]

I'm exactly arguing against that.

Please define what "based on someone else's property" means.

Also, tell me what exactly "property" is, because I personally consider property as something I have and others don't, and the moment someone else has it, I don't have it anymore.

If you use Disney's IP (logo or brand) and try to make money of that without licence you can bet your ass that they WILL stop you.
Failing to recognize it won't make it go away.

And what on earth that means? Also, I can't do anything I want if what I want is unethical, offensive or against the law, but while being unethical and offensive are pretty much universal things, the "law" is arbitrary, it's made up, democratically (in the best cases) made up but made up, and can be argued against, and I'm doing it for what concerns copyright.

Going back to your beer example, what is the reason why in a show I couldn't use a bottle of Bud? Does it mean that boogie cannot drink Mountain Dew in his shows, or at least cover the brand and don't talk about it? Who's gaining from this and who's losing? And is this a matter on which the public money should be spent?

My point is exactly that the very concept of copyright and IP is wrong. I'm not telling that I think I should be able to resell, for example, a movie or a game exactly as it is, thus replacing myself to the original producer/seller, effectively stealing money from him, nor I think I should be able to sell my stuff under a registered, active trademark that I don't own, thus deceiving people in believing I am someone I'm not: I'm talking about transformative work, because EVERYTHING IS A REMIX, if I create something that has a starting point in some other work, but for another reason, with a different purpose, making a completely different product, there's no reason why I should give the money I earned to someone else.

On the "everything is a remix" topic I strongly suggest, if you didn't do, to watch THIS series that kind of explains it in a very slow and simple way.

I also suggest to read THIS: it's an old story, but it's still really relevant. I'd suggest to really think about the "Where would you draw the line?" part at the very end.

Also, there's plenty of literature about the fact that the concepts of copyright and intellectual property are damaging to all industries and to human's progress and cultural evolution: a good starting point is THIS book.

If you're arguing that there shouldn't be IP law at all, you're talking to the wrong guy and you're actually making the job of everyone who's against youtube's new scheme harder.
IP laws exists, are upheld and recognized whether or not you find them worse than eugenics or not.
Laws are made up but the fines you can get by not following them are very real.
The rule of thumb really is if you didn't get a licence when using someone's else IP you're open to litigations.
There's no "it shouldn't be like that", it IS like that right now.
Unless you manage to make the law change and fight for it (be it lobbying or getting into politics yourself) it's here to stay.

 

[ExFalsoQuodlibet]

If you use Disney's IP (logo or brand) and try to make money of that without licence you can bet your ass that they WILL stop you.
Failing to recognize it won't make it go away.

I answered to this in the rest of my post, and I also stated that there are some cases in which a law that protects someone's intellectual work from ACTUAL stealing is needed.

I addressed all your concerns in my post, so if you want to discuss this matter in a serious way and not by just saying "it is what it is", I'm here.

Also, you didn't answer my questions.