dragonelite
Member
So there aren't any alternative outlets?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
boogie2988: Copyright-Gate: Get A Real JOB!!!
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
Al Gore's Thermostat
Banned
We buy the game. It is our property. As long as we don't pirate, I don't see the issue.
Greed is evil.
Greed is evil.
The problem is that a game is software and under UK Copyright law is called a literacy work. Therefore because a Lets Play is usually a performance for educational purposes of teaching the user of how to complete the software - files nice n' neatly into fair dealing.
Another problem with Youtube is I could receive all the permission I want from Nintendo UK to monetize a video on Youtube but I'm having to deal with NoA at that point if there is an issue.
We can discuss how IP laws are shitty and pat ourselves in the back all day, that won't change Youtube's stance or make it any better.
It's actually a total waste of time that could be better used in finding a solution to that problem.
Now if no one is interested in finding a solution to the youtube situation that doesn't involve going against corporations that based their entire business model on IPs for the last 100 years that might be more constructive.
You want me to define trademarks, brands, likeness and so on?
Youtube is based in the US, UK laws shouldn't apply.
Although Google may be force to comply by a judge if there's trial....But since no one wants to go to court over this...
ExFalsoQuodlibet
Member
I am very interested in finding a solution, and the fact that a company based its business model on something, and thus it should be allowed to continue that way even if that something is wrong, is total utter complete bullshit: for example, a company that made money for years producing toxic waste and carcinogen emission has to stop ASAP, no one cares about its business. I feel like I'm stating the obvious here.
Anyway, my solution? Drop the concept of copyright altogether, remove it from the world starting from tomorrow, keep using trademarks because they actually protect IDENTITY and not IP, and start a process to gradually invalidate all the patents in the next 10-15 years. Also, cancel the idea that an "idea" can be "property".
No, I mean these questions:
I'm stating that going against a company that did this for so long and so well head on is a stupid way to go about it.
Unlike toxic waste you won't manage to convince law makers or even the general population that it is a life threatening danger.
That's why to solve the problem of Youtube flagging things like crazy is like saying you find a cure to a broken touth and it is to make everyone immortal.
Considering the US is so close to making ideas patentable I'm sure there's a middleground closer to reality that can solve this.
So yes you want me to define brand, trademarks and all that.
Because that's where the whole thing start.
ExFalsoQuodlibet
Member
Well, culture is a much more complex problem than health, but it's not less relevant. I'm not sure what you want me, or people that agree with me, to do. My argument was general, not particularly related to this youtube event, but to answer more directly:
The content ID system is broken because it transfers the burden of the proof on the content creators, i.e. the accused, but that burden should be of the accuser: the solution would be to notify these obscure companies, that hold the copyrights, of these supposed violations, and then the companies can check themselves if the incriminated videos are fair use or not. Then, they could DMCA, but I assume that, even in a legal system that treats copyright matters so horribly bad like the US one, abusing DMCA notices is not good or convenient from a legal point of view. Also, receiving all those notices could lead copyright holders to relax theirs submissions to the content ID system.
Middleground? So instead of a very very bad law US of A only get a very bad law? I honestly don't understand your point: I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a congressman, I don't even live in US, I'm just trying to make a point: if I lived in the US of A I'd definitively vote a candidate that favors a relaxation of copyright obligations, and I'd write him every time I'd feel a shitstorm is coming.
I'll make it simpler: why can't I use in a movie a product that everyone knows about and everyone sees every single day basically everywhere like a popular beer? What damage is done? Who's losing money on this? And should this be a matter of public regulation?
Jawmuncher
Member
Couldn't have said it better myself.
The thing is unless you manage to convince the general population that this system is shit and need to be changed ASAP, you won't manage to convince a lawmaker to change the law or a judge that they mustn't rule in favour of stringent copyright limitations.
I remember that there's consequences ni abusing DMCA, so there's probably very good reasons why they want to bypass DMCA and get more money in the process.
Also really no one is entitled money from google's video hosting site other than google at this point, so even from a legal standpoint I don't think what they're doing (redirecting monetisation) is even that illegal.
Roma wasn't built in a day.
the whole point of making laws is to make compromise that is acceptable for everyone.
In this case going to Google and say that youtube should abolish IP laws so that would solve this situation is ...not very smart.
You're basically make it seem that the original IP holder endorse your production.
If you didn't get the license to do so you can damage the IP making it less likely that the IP holder will make money off its products.
It could argued that
derExperte
Member
You made these games that you're selling cheaper by exploiting regional price differences? http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=93401236&highlight=#post93401236
.He's selling a product and never made a claim to own the copyrights.
He's selling an actual product.
Not the same thing at all.
derExperte
Member
Not exactly the same thing but it's still against Valve's wishes and kinda shady. If I were doing that I at least wouldn't point my finger at others.
digital
Wait they're physical releases or digital games?
Ok I get your point.
DIsregard what I said.
ExFalsoQuodlibet
Member
The single cannot convince the general population, and if it could it would probably be bad. What the single can do is try to spread awareness and create viral ideas, and that's what I try to do when I discuss a topic, and if use of good logic could make convince even a single person about some point I'd consider the effort worth it. Still, I don't understand what's your point, your suggestion and your proposed solutions to the matter: I'm tired of this meta-discussion.
True, Google can do whatever they want with their platform, if they want to transform YouTube in a huge pile of shit they are perfectly entitled to: personally, I consider Google a really bad company that should not be supported, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did. But if Google was in in doing the right thing, I think that the way I described could be better than what it did up now. I don't think that the content ID system has any legal implications, it's not a point of what's legal, it's a point of what's fair towards content makers: Google has probably more interest in favoring corporations in this matter, so I'd suggest to just abandon YouTube and go somewhere else, since these people are not going to make much money on YouTube anymore. But even if Google has any right to do whatever bullshit move it wants, I reserve myself the right to criticize it.
Huh? Endorse my production? If a walk into a shop that sell Buds and the owner threatens me with a knife, how exactly my opinion of that particular brand of beer would be changed? Also, what about free speech? What if my character, in my story, really hates Bud beer for some particular reason? Why I should not mention that in my fictional production?
I'll be more direct : WHO THE HELL CARES? The moment you throw your product to the masses, the moment you constantly pound people with TV advertisement, the moment you print your brand everywhere, is the moment you expose yourself to any sort of public criticism. If you want to make people buy your stuff, make good stuff, your economic losses must not be a public concern.
These corporations bet on their products, and create actual subcultures around them, so they should be subjected to cultural discussion and criticism, don't you think?
If you're lobbying anyone but the lawmakers you're doing it wrong, it's the very definition of farts in the wind.
If you do nothing but discuss a matter, it won't solve anything.
You can't blame Google in trying to protect itself from litigation in the system they are.
They're going at it the worst way possible but still.
Heck if people monetized content that were fully theirs to begin with this wouldn't have happened anyway.
You mean if you made a vid that was depicting this?
Well Bud wouldn't want to be associated with shitty neighborhood where you can be robbed by the owners?
There's plenty of reasons. You're not entitled in using their products either.
If it isn't clearly covered by fair use you're probably asking for trouble here.
That's your view on the status of the use of the public force, you should understand that is not the view shared by everyone.
If a majority disagree well needless to say that's not how society will work.
They're open to discussion and criticism but that doesn't mean there's no wrong way to go about it.
zenosparadox
Member
You are over-simplifying things. Suppose you write a book, I buy the book, scan the pages and post a PDF online for free. Or I do something strange like make a YouTube video that shows all the pages of your book.
Sure, I bought it, but should I be able to do what I did? What am I allowed to do with copyrighted materials? I basically put the entirety of your work out there for free so that someone else can get a semblance of an "experience" without having to pay for it.
I do think that video games are different because of the interactive standpoint. No two people play the same game the exact same way, so the experience will be different if you buy the game and play it yourself. What about 100% walkthrough videos? Are cutscenes somehow sacred? Some people do watch YouTube videos so that they do not have to buy/play the game (Xenosaga II comes to mind), so where do you draw the line?
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
It is funny that Google is in this position given that Google has in the past claimed that IP doesn't exist and that they could scan and host whatever books they wanted to in google books without having to compensate anyone.
Al Gore's Thermostat
Banned
You're displaying your gameplay and your interaction. Reading is not interactive.
No one is putting the game out there. There are no files to download, just a video to watch.
There is no line to draw. Don't watch the videos. Period.
ExFalsoQuodlibet
Member
Ok, it's obvious that we two have different opinions on this: to me is much more important that awareness spreads, and not that an arbitrary law is forced upon uncultured people. Amen.
But you still have to tell me this:
If something is "fully theirs" it means that there's property involved, so what's your definition of property? I mean "your" definition, for the sake of discussion, not something that was decided by corporations through lobbying, with the purpose of adding more more money to their already huge piles.
Also, by reading this:
it seems like you're not trying to understand what I'm saying: what I argue is that since a company has the right to affix a giant poster with its distracting and misleading advertisement right in front of my house, on the other side of the street, why I'm not allowed to discuss that product's quality or the lack of through a public channel?
I mean, something in the official US law is moving ( http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-innovation-act-first-anti-patent-troll-bill/ ) but if we could only point out the official state of things all the discussions would be really boring.
My original post was simply based on the fact that a lot of people blindly accept the fact that basically everything is starting to be copyrighted like it was a natural, obvious thing, but I don't think it's obvious at all, and I think I brought to the discussion enough arguments and evidence.
If you upload vids of you reading the books, you still can't monetize that without consent regardless of the fact that people won't read the book in your voice.
Actually if you're watching youtube...
The law is what's forcing Google's hand here, awareness still doesn't mean you are entitled to break the law in any way.
I'm not arguing my PoV here, my PoV is that indeed copyright is largely a tool used to enforce scarcity where there is none and force a government granted monopoly to allow some to make more money at the expense of others.
The definition of property I'm using is the one defined in most cases of IP legal battle so in somewhat your words :
something that was decided by governments, with the purpose of adding more more money to the already huge piles corporations have
I believe you're allowed to discuss this however it's not clear cut.
Here for example when they're showing products, they mustn't show the product or it's considered advertising.
Which leads to some weird reports sometimes.
Still the situation is more complex than seen at 1rst glance.
Well considering that copyright maximalists are getting their ways, yes everything is starting to get copyrighted and patented (to make things worse).
And no I don't think it's a good thing but i really think this is something that need to be dealt with more than just some vids on youtube raging at google's latest stance.
Nostremitus
Member
Oh, there's nothing wrong with using promotional content. I was speaking specifically about "Let's Plays."
Ok, so since you clearly didn't understand what i was saying, I'll rephrase.
Those people did sell their performances and they belong to the rights holders. They paid a lot of money for those performances, unless you're willing to pay for them too, you shouldn't use them. Otherwise, you're stealing from the owner.
What you're suggesting is the same as waiting for your neighbor to buy a lawnmower, then you take it and start a lawncare service without his consent. Arguing that it's ok because he wasn't going to use it in that way is just crazy. It doesn't matter how much time and energy you pour into your lawncare service if you've stolen the lawnmower.
If intellectual property isn't protected, there's no incentive for people to pay for it's creation. If you want to do free shit with it, good for you. Just don't think you're entitled to make money off of someone elses property.
D
Deleted member 10571
Unconfirmed Member
What about choose-your-own-adventure books with plenty of art inside?
No it doesn't.
Where are you getting this from?
There is no fair dealing exemption in the UK for a performance, nor for educational or teaching purposes.
There's a fair dealing exemption for use of copyrighted works for non-commercial, private study, but I hope I don't have to explain how a commercial video on the largest public video hosting site in the world and visible to the general public isn't that.
Except that according to the following video, the ID system has been there for ages and it is the multi-channel networks and not youtube that are causing the trouble:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2gswdiH3VE
Basically angry joe's videos are now getting flagged because polaris downgraded him to an affiliate status.
Anyone who isn't in a network was getting those ID flags for years now.
Also if anyone want's an actual lawyer's perspective on this, read this article:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Mona...ntent_ID_Claim_System_A_Legal_Perspective.php
ExFalsoQuodlibet
Member
How?
This is completely misleading, those people's performances were used to create a product that was already sold and monetized: then, afterwards, for the purpose of reviewing that content, or another fair use scenario, I'm using what was made with those performances, and not the performances themselves, to create another product, completely different and with a different purpose.
False, it would be like my neighbor buys a lawnmower, then another one buys another lawnmower, and I just make a photo of those and other lawnmowers, put those photos in a book titled "World's Lawnmowers" and sell the book. That's a more appropriate example, I create additional, different content and don't steal anything nor prevent my neighbors to use their lawnmowers.
Again, ideas should not be considered property. I covered this in a more than abundant way in my other posts in this thread, and provided all the arguments, references and links I considered fit. Read that stuff.
Also, the idea that if intellectual property is not protected then no one creates anything anymore is just blatantly wrong and is not backed up by any historical evidence; it's the opposite actually: industries without patents, for example, have thrived and evolved in a healthy way, and when patents were introduced they started to wither and transformed in monopolies.
n00bsauce87
Member
I have to say before this video, I've only seen him raging in videos and that's what I believed to be his shtick was. But I'm forever thankful for seeing this video. He's a really cool guy who "gets" it. The situation that is currently happening. What an awesome video.
EDIT: Do people who don't monetize from videos with "copywritten" material become immune? I'm still trying to get a good understanding of this new thing.
EDIT: Do people who don't monetize from videos with "copywritten" material become immune? I'm still trying to get a good understanding of this new thing.
That's an easy one to answer.
If somebody uploads an entire movie to youtube, google and not the uploader will get sued.
So google must remove infringing content.
Now take a look at how many videos are getting uploaded each minute - there is no way in hell google could check them all manually.
So they have an automated system and a "networks" program that allows the network take care of copyright's without the automated system. But the networks messed up and now downgraded most of their users back to the automated system.
ExFalsoQuodlibet
Member
I understand that the law forced Google to create the networks program, but I'm not talking about this; I'm talking about the monetization that's forwarded to copyright claimers: there's no law that says that, and Google has no obligation to favor those claimers instead of the content creators in the dispute, and since the system is arbitrary and is not capable of recognizing instances of fair use, Google's move is unjustifiable by means of law.
The gamasutra article I posted earlier talks about this. The conclusion there is that it might be illegal for nintendo to monetize videos with nintendo games footage. It would be on a case by case basis, and someone will have to sue them to find out.
Edit: and it still wouldn't be google's fault since it is nintendo who claimed the copyrights. Google just complied as they are required by the DMCA.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Angry Joe is a character. He's angry and screams.
But Joe himself is a person. And as a person, he just put out a new video where he more calmly explains everything wrong with the system and how to fix it. It's worth a watch. As is that other video posted on the last page and the other day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAi81_uvztM
Clockwork5
Member
Infringing copyright is NOT a real job...
Doing video reviews does not infringe on copyrights.
Doing Let's Plays of games from companies who supplied a blanket permission to use their content doesn't either.
Still, both of these and other non-infringing content is getting flagged.
n00bsauce87
Member
I think when someone has taken your job away, getting upset and angry is a fair response. Especially if what you where doing wasn't illegal. It's not a matter of which kind of jobs are more important than others because they all play a role in some sort or fashion.
maneil99
Member
Reviews with large amounts of in game video isnt fair use. Deal with it
It simply doesn't affect many people. The majority don't make money, they'll see the copyright flag and click 'ok' because it doesn't affect them.
n00bsauce87
Member
I think this is only valid if companies like IGN and Rev3 gets flagged as well. What gives them immunity to monetize their videos of reviewed games when smaller youtube channels can't?
The first reason is licensing. The second is that, unlike some walkthrough videos, they don't post the entire game online.
maneil99
Member
Yea, i guess everyone should spend full price. Lol what a shitty straw man arguement. So because i sell games cheaper then retail i cant say that piggybacking off others content is a risky buisness and that they have no right to complain? Please gtfo with your garbage
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
This is what I'm curious about. YouTube was supposed to make it easy for a nobody to make a review of something and people could actually see it. Now it seems to be taken over again by the big guys with the little guys getting pushed aside again.
They have contracts and agreements (edit: with the publishers) in place that specifically allow them to do that.
Anyway, reviews are protected by fair use, as long as it isn't a 5 hour review of a 6 hour game or something like that.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Nothing remotely as popular as Youtube, that has the same sized audience. (Not targetting you with the rest of this comment) Some people saying "they should just all move to Twitch!" or, "They'll just find a new site!" really don't grasp the massive size of Youtube's exposure and it's audience, and have no idea how big that site is. Nothing in the foreseeable future could match that type of video sharing. And unless starting tomorrow, there's a billion person mass-exodus from Youtube to another site, it's going to stay top dog for awhile.
Here are some stats for anyone, who wants perspective on how laughibly huge Youtube is today:
http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html
n00bsauce87
Member
I also find what AngryJoe revealed in his video that was linked here (the calmer ver of AngryJoe) disturbing. You can have people/companies pretending to be other people and companies to get videos flagged. That in itself is bad because someone could decide to be an asshole for the day and "steal" money from these youtube channels. I would love to know how these people get verified to claim videos on youtube. That seems to be a big problem. (referring to video co-pilot and the "fake" video co-pilot)
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Exactly. The system is completely screwed up. But YouTube doesn't want to admit it. So we need more of these guys pointing it out in order to even get them to move an inch.
Who knows when anything will be fixed. CGR has already left YouTube behind.
Nostremitus
Member
1. This is kind of funny actually... To think that the final product is worth less than the individual pieces. This is the same mentality movie pirates use. The digital version is different than the original film so it should be legal too, right?
2. Not remotely the same thing unless that book is going to mow lawns. The Let's play videos show the entire story arch of a game.
3. And I'm done. If you don't believe that intellectual property exists, then there's nothing more to say... Move to a 2nd or 3rd world country where everything is fair use as long as it isn't restricted by the current regime.
4. Yeah, that's why the largest entertainment industries with the best paid content creators and the largest budgets to use to fully realize their visions exist in countries without copyright protection, right? Also, patent =/= copyright... at all.
CadetMahoney
Member
Sounds like an interesting scam, pretend to be the copyright holder (somehow), hope the real copyright holder never notices (maybe because they don't care), and let the money just roll in over the years. Take the money out and launder it ASAP each time for when the gravy train runs out and (in worse case) you get arrested or something.
ExFalsoQuodlibet
Member
I don't understand what you wrote, I said that when I do a transformative work I don't use and sell the original work for its original purpose (that would be actual stealing), but create something new and different.
If the work is adequately transformative, the book will not mow lawns. I'm not talking about full playthroughts without commentary or anything else, I'm talking about actual transformative works.
There's also a point to be made about the fact that let's plays don't damage publishers in any way, but actually help both publishers and gamers: again, I covered that in other posts in this thread.
What I "believe" doesn't matter, and your are superficially skipping everything I'm writing. As I said I covered the matter in my other posts, I'm not going to repeat myself. There plenty of literature about how the intellectual property is bullshit and doesn't help anyone but big corporations that don't need any more help or money (and actually damages independent creators), if you're really interested you can find informations yourself.
Al Gore's Thermostat
Banned
What about them?