Support NeoGAF

[MilkBeard]

Everything we do with someone else's IP

That comment was more about what I said about SOPA and PIPA, but yes, I realize that monetisation off of videos of a product is a tricky subject. I think in that sense it comes down to the companies wanting to profit from the views of said youtube personality, when it was the personality that drew the viewers there to begin with. But we are still in a time when regulations are very crude and they aren't designed to take more delicate situations into matter. For example, the regulations are deeming the youtube personalities' content as being non-existent, when they also have their own stake in personal content in the video. In that sense, there could be a division of royalties made for whenever copyrighted content is used, that way both parties can receive royalties.

I'm not sure if it will ever get to that point, though.

 

[Ray Wonder]

Sounds like you want to believe people actually want people to be broke, since you've mentioned it in previous comments. Only a heartless person would want that, and attempting to demonize those who disagree with you is a poor debate strategy. I certainly don't, but I don't believe someone should be able to make money from another persons IP without paying due. Apparently you do, if that's the way they feed their family.

I not once said that they shouldn't have to pay due. Taking the money away completely is what I'm against. If they were required to pay a percentage to post Let's Plays, then that's fine. These game companies are not that naive, they know that game footage will be uploaded.

It doesn't matter either way though, because it's not even the game devs going after them. It's a bot that finds matches, and auto strikes ID's the videos. That's where the problem lies.

Edit: Not strike, but Content ID

 

[Orayn]

I not once said that they shouldn't have to pay due. Taking the money away completely is what I'm against. If they were required to pay a percentage to post Let's Plays, then that's fine. These game companies are not that naive, they know that game footage will be uploaded.

It doesn't matter either way though, because it's not even the game devs going after them. It's a bot that finds matches, and auto strikes the videos. That's where the problem lies.

The bot doesn't give out strikes, just content ID matches. Copyright strikes and content ID are very different.

 

[Biker19]

Thanks, but I don't see us doing anything special, it just seems right. End of the day we make our money from people buying our game / DLC and so forth. If someone makes a let's play of one of our games and it convinces people to go check it out then great, they deserve some form of recognition and if that's us allowing them to monetise their videos so be it. The fact that systems are being put in place to ensure that Content Creators will be given early access code in the future should be an indication of our stance on it.

Don't buy into the notion of it putting people off the game, same could be said of reviews, previews, screenshots and trailers we make ourselves. Ultimately it's up to us to make a good game.

Ultimately it's something we'll be pushing extra hard on over the coming weeks, especially over the festive period when we always see an influx in this sort of activity (lots of presents, sales and games being gifted) so I'm pushing to get something live up on one of our web spaces within the next week.

Bravo.

A lot of posters here needs to pay very close attention to this post.

 

[Senor Kami]

I see this a lot, but working hard has zero to so with this. Working hard, doing a lot of effort, etc is wholly irrelevant. That means nothing. That makes no difference and is silly to even bring up. How does that make anything ok?

 

[ironcreed]

I can't tell you how many games I have decided to buy because of Youtube gameplay videos. Hell, I am actually watching one right now in another window for Spelunky and am probably buying it tonight.

 

[PotionBleue]

I see this a lot, but working hard has zero to so with this. Working hard, doing a lot of effort, etc is wholly irrelevant. That means nothing. That makes no difference and is silly to even bring up. How does that make anything ok?

I guess they are doing that to make their subscribers side up with them by compassion, thus avoiding to explain the real copyright/fair use issues.

 

[Estocolmo]

Exactly what kind of game videos are being removed?

PS: Intellectual property, go to hell!

 

[jbug617]

Capcom Unity just tweeted this.

@Capcom_Unity: YouTubers: Pls let us know if you've had videos flagged today. These may be illegitimate flags not instigated by us. We are investigating.

 

[Clockwork5]

whelp. i hope twitch is cool.

But seriously, there are a bunch of good

Spoiler

and terrible

LPrs out there that dont make a dime and will continue. I bet a lot of the successful ones will stick around too, if only to keep their sub base around in case of changes in the future. It sucks that they cant make money on it now, but anyone who was planning a career in broadcasting copyrighted material from a DRM hungry industry, within the ever-changing TOS of YouTube, well...

 

[dmr87]

beaten

 

[Curly]

Using my first post on Gaf to show my support for Two Best Friends Play/The Sw1tcher -- the only YouTube channel I visit daily.

 

[Hidden One]

Time for them to get real jobs? No more screaming YOUTUBE money!

 

[bigboss370]

In that particular instance I blame Telltale for making their "games" so readily YouTube-able.

yeah, pirates use the same justification in these "particular instances".

(i'm not saying i'm totally in favor of whats going on btw)

 

[JakkuFurosu]

When pubs have to dump more cash into advertising I dont want to hear shit from them.

 

[Imbarkus]

Using my first post on Gaf to show my support for Two Best Friends Play/The Sw1tcher -- the only YouTube channel I visit daily.

Good horror game Let's Plays.

 

[Disguises]

Capcom Unity just tweeted this.

I was just about to post that! Sounds like youtube are making a big mistake and only further pushing these creatives away from their site.

I hate watching adverts for a trailer which has been ripped from a company and re-uploaded to make money, that I have a problem with, but that's only a small percentage of videos on youtube. Will wait to see what unfolds tomorrow...

 

[Gannd]

If I were videogame publishers and developers I'd be terrified of this. This is endless free publicity that is being stopped out of sheer ridiculousness. What are they doing?

They've probably done the research that this "publicity" doesn't increase sales. My sisters kid will watch live streams and lets plays all day long and won't buy the games or ask for them on Christmas.

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

Is this why Neogaf was down earlier?

 

[Gattsu25]

Oh well. Screw these asshole publishers. If they don't want people to advertise their games for free then they should pay for their own fucking advertising.


In my own minor showing of protest I just deleted all game related videos off my youtube channel if the game came from any of the major publishers... and I never signed up for monetization in the first place.

 

[jamesinclair]

beaten

Shame there's no penalty for bogus claims.

I've had five non gaming videos flagged, I appealed then all and won all. No consequence for the illegal false claim

 

[UnrealEck]

Looks like a lot of people are going to have to go and get real jobs.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

I actually subscribed to theRadBrad recently. Fuck.

 

[Loco4Coco]

Using my first post on Gaf to show my support for Two Best Friends Play/The Sw1tcher -- the only YouTube channel I visit daily.

I know right. Hopefully everything is ok on their side.

 

[PotionBleue]

Screw these asshole publishers. If they don't want people to advertise their games for free then they should pay for their own fucking advertising.

In my own minor showing of protest I just deleted all game related videos off my youtube channel if the game came from any of the major publishers... and I never signed up for monetization in the first place.

By talking about games on forums you're also doing free advertising

Shame there's no penalty for bogus claims.

I've had five non gaming videos flagged, I appealed then all and won all. No consequence for the illegal false claim

Yes RIGHT THERE is a big problem. I remember reading the law does have penalties in place for fallacious DMCA takedown requests but they are ridiculous to the point no one's going to court for that.

 

[stolin]

I'm curious how this would be perceived if the Copyright initial license was clear from the beginning. Take the NFL one as an example.. seem pretty clear that no derivative works are non-commercial, informational only.

http://www.nfl.com/help/terms

1. Copyright Rights

We own or license all copyright rights in the text, images, photographs, video, audio, graphics, user interface, and other content provided on the Services, and the selection, coordination, and arrangement of such content (whether by us or by you), to the full extent provided under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, you are prohibited from copying, reproducing, modifying, distributing, displaying, performing or transmitting any of the contents of the Services for any purposes, and nothing otherwise stated or implied in the Services confers on you any license or right to do so.

You may use the Services and the contents contained in the Services solely for your own individual non-commercial and informational purposes only. Any other use, including for any commercial purposes, is strictly prohibited without our express prior written consent. Systematic retrieval of data or other content from the Services, whether to create or compile, directly or indirectly, a collection, compilation, database or directory, is prohibited absent our express prior written consent.

 

[Feep]

Problem is: making money off something that isn't your own is illegal.

You're completely missing the point. They're making money on their videos, their commentary, their editing skills, whatever. They are not providing the *product* to gamers, which is the ability to play the game. This differs from movies or television, where uploading the footage *would* be providing the product for free.

It could be argued either way, but the more direct point is that companies are fucking stupid if they're initiating these claims. Horrible for long-term business.

 

[Gattsu25]

By talking about games on forums you're also doing free advertising



Yes RIGHT THERE is a big problem. I remember reading the law does have penalties in place for fallacious DMCA takedown requests but they are ridiculous to the point no one's going to court for that.

Content ID claims are not DMCA claims.

Regarding your earlier point: I'm not positive enough to count as advertising for much. My interests are fairly scattershot and I delve into AAA threads less and less often these days.

 

[Kadayi]

The problem is that Playing a game is far different from watching someone else play game because, you know, it's interactive.

Well entirely depends on the structural and narrative nature of the game. You can watch a lets play of something like Tomb Raider or The Last of Us and pretty much get the entirety of the game experience vicariously. Sure, you yourself might not be clicking the buttons, or choosing whether to 'knife that fool' or 'put an arrow in his knee', but you're getting all the narrative beats and payoffs delivered to you without having to pay Square Enix or Naughty Dog a red cent.

You can even go to something more extreme like say Dear Esther where in you're literally just a walking camera. From an experiential perspective there's very little difference between watching a video and playing the game, save where you're looking (though given that lack of differential I'd actually say that's equally an argument as to whether Dear Esther can be qualified as a 'game' Vs interactive experience)

I think there's a very strong case for personal ownership monetization where in people are critiquing a game or doing a tutorial/instructional video on how to find a collectible, beat or boss, or complete a level quest, etc, etc because the footage is required to illuminate the additional information that person is conveying and falls under fair use, and hopefully those people won't be negatively impacted. But where it's a case of 'I'm playing this game so you don't have to' then I can understand why corporate feathers are ruffled from a strictly legal perspective.

Anyway interesting to see how these things play out.

 

[zakislam]

I'm curious how this would be perceived if the Copyright initial license was clear from the beginning. Take the NFL one as an example.. seem pretty clear that no derivative works are non-commercial, informational only.

http://www.nfl.com/help/terms

1. Copyright Rights

We own or license all copyright rights in the text, images, photographs, video, audio, graphics, user interface, and other content provided on the Services, and the selection, coordination, and arrangement of such content (whether by us or by you), to the full extent provided under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, you are prohibited from copying, reproducing, modifying, distributing, displaying, performing or transmitting any of the contents of the Services for any purposes, and nothing otherwise stated or implied in the Services confers on you any license or right to do so.

You may use the Services and the contents contained in the Services solely for your own individual non-commercial and informational purposes only. Any other use, including for any commercial purposes, is strictly prohibited without our express prior written consent. Systematic retrieval of data or other content from the Services, whether to create or compile, directly or indirectly, a collection, compilation, database or directory, is prohibited absent our express prior written consent.

Exactly. Most of the guys doing walkthroughs do commentary or/and criticize the game, which is clearly under Fair Use laws, so why they're getting hit so heavily is beyond me.

 

[Cyrano]

Well entirely depends on the structural and narrative nature of the game. You can watch a lets play of something like Tomb Raider or The Last of Us and pretty much get the entirety of the game experience vicariously. Sure, you yourself might not be clicking the buttons, or choosing whether to 'knife that fool' or 'put an arrow in his knee', but you're getting all the narrative beats and payoffs delivered to you without having to pay Square Enix or Naughty Dog a red cent.

You can even go to something more extreme like say Dear Esther where in you're literally just a walking camera. From an experiential perspective there's very little difference between watching a video and playing the game, save where you're looking (though given that lack of differential I'd actually say that's equally an argument as to whether Dear Esther can be qualified as a 'game' Vs interactive experience)

I think there's a very strong case for personal ownership monetization where in people are critiquing a game or doing a tutorial/instructional video on how to find a collectible, beat or boss, or complete a level quest, etc, etc because the footage is required to illuminate the additional information that person is conveying and falls under fair use, and hopefully those people won't be negatively impacted. But where it's a case of 'I'm playing this game so you don't have to' then I can understand why corporate feathers are ruffled from a strictly legal perspective.

Anyway interesting to see how these things play out.

Assuming that these are, in fact, games, and that interactivity is the primary purview of games, without that interactivity you are not playing a game and any copyright holder telling you that you are stealing a game because you are watching it, is ridiculous. It would be like watching a movie with no video or listening to a record with no background music, just the lyrics.

 

[zakislam]

Great video explaining the situation at hand from someone who's been experiencing content ID claims: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6-TOZat-wo

 

[PotionBleue]

Assuming that these are, in fact, games, and that interactivity is the primary purview of games, without that interactivity you are not playing a game and any copyright holder telling you that you are stealing a game because you are watching it, is ridiculous. It would be like watching a movie with no video or listening to a record with no background music, just the lyrics.

I've seen plenty of people commenting on Just Dance videos things like “omg thanks now I can play just dance without buying a wii!!”. For a lot of them the score (that you would get with a console) doesn't matter as much as the fun.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

Why shouldn't they? I have no interest in Dark Souls on its own. My interest is in seeing Vinny get demolished.

And tourney streamers are watched for their skill, not the game they play.

I think there can be comprimise... in my little world. Maybe Vinny could pay a small fee to use the dark souls or ask for permission. Also some tourney streamers are on payroll right? Hopefully this gets all sorted out.

 

[Kadayi]

Exactly. Most of the guys doing walkthroughs do commentary or/and criticize the game, which is clearly under Fair Use laws, so why they're getting hit so heavily is beyond me.

The legal argument would likely fall under the necessity to show the entirety of the experience Vs a summary. Fair use means 'limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission' it's a not free pass to show things in their entirety just because criticism is added.

Looking outside the purview of games, no ones doing video reviews of breaking bad or mad men episodes and showing the entirety of the episode when reviewing it for example. Nor are people youtubing entire films and adding commentary tracks.

Assuming that these are, in fact, games, and that interactivity is the primary purview of games, without that interactivity you are not playing a game and any copyright holder telling you that you are stealing a game because you are watching it, is ridiculous. It would be like watching a movie with no video or listening to a record with no background music, just the lyrics.

No ones playing Mass Effect to press buttons, they're playing it to be commander Shepard. Pressing buttons is just how you get Shepard to respond, and a reflection of the technology at hand. The notion that interactivity as an act is what's paramount compared to the in engine payoffs of action and narrative advancement for gamers is a bit of a stretch tbh.

Ultimately any actual detailed adjudication needs to go to a law court to determine case law and establish precedent. However having a bit of legal background I think the arguments for, are on pretty rocky ground in truth.

 

[Axass]

Depends on the game but off the top of my head it could cause an issue for some of the DiRT titles. F1 had a lot of The Chain being used in our promo videos for 2013 so that might be an area to watch.

GRID 2 was all custom soundtrack which I actually uploaded for everyone to download so there is a chance someone is using it but as it's that own the copyright it should be ok.

My inbox has been clear of content id emails so guess all is good atm.



Thanks, but I don't see us doing anything special, it just seems right. End of the day we make our money from people buying our game / DLC and so forth. If someone makes a let's play of one of our games and it convinces people to go check it out then great, they deserve some form of recognition and if that's us allowing them to monetise their videos so be it. The fact that systems are being put in place to ensure that Content Creators will be given early access code in the future should be an indication of our stance on it.

Don't buy into the notion of it putting people off the game, same could be said of reviews, previews, screenshots and trailers we make ourselves. Ultimately it's up to us to make a good game.

Ultimately it's something we'll be pushing extra hard on over the coming weeks, especially over the festive period when we always see an influx in this sort of activity (lots of presents, sales and games being gifted) so I'm pushing to get something live up on one of our web spaces within the next week.

Mad props to Codemasters, everyone should read this post. This is how a sane company acts, not by alienating your fanbase like everyone, from Microsoft to Nintendo, seems to be doing.

 

[BajiBoxer]

If you are doing what you're doing for fun and not for money, those ID Claims will do jack all to you. However, if you are raging because you are losing money, educate yourself on copyrights. Consider yourself lucky that most companies allows you to upload footage in the first place.

Those who were making videos for fun will keep doing them and, for that, I thank you. If you were doing videos for money and want to leave Youtube. Go ahead, leave. We won't miss you. Problem is: making money off something that isn't your own is illegal. Good luck on finding your new safe heaven and regaining your popularity back. Chances are, you will lose hope and abandon because your money isn't coming in.

I'm not a content creator but, if I'd be one, I would thank you just because for the fact that I can upload footage in the first place.

Above opinion was if the ID claim was right. What I'll have to agree with, is that some of the claims are claiming a SINGLE second (or short segment) of a video or complete nonsensical claim such as Sega claiming a Mario video. That is total BS and I agree. No further explanation needed.

EDIT

Don't get me wrong, I hate cash-grabbing opportunities, the copyright monopoly and stuff like that. My opinion goes in accordance with the current laws; even if I don't agree with them.

I don't think you opinion is in accordance with the current laws. Though copyright law has become increasingly pro-corporate and anti-free speech, I think most of these people making money are protected under fair use since they are using the recorded media as part of commentary and criticism. There's nothing about fair use that says you can't make money. If that were the case, many radio talk show hosts, political commentators, and comedians would be very easily shut down. Negative video reviews of media would be practically non-existant, and Giant Bomb quick looks would cease to exist.

 

[wildfire]

beaten

Haha Oh wow.

 

[MilkBeard]

beaten

Whelp, Youtube's shitty policies at play.

 

[Kashinoda]

Looks like a lot of people are going to have to go and get real jobs.

So many bitter people in this thread.

 

[PotionBleue]

Whelp, Youtube's shitty policies at play.

YouTube is certainly not the one to blame here, it's the copyright owners, as well as the copyright trolls. Google has to deal with this whole claim shit if it wants to be protected from liability just like other hosting websites.

 

[tamaster92]

Had another 3 notices since I last posted, all from the same company :/

Sign

 

[Cyrano]

The legal argument would likely fall under the necessity to show the entirety of the experience Vs a summary. Fair use means 'limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission' it's a not free pass to show things in their entirety just because criticism is added.

Looking outside the purview of games, no ones doing video reviews of breaking bad or mad men episodes and showing the entirety of the episode when reviewing it for example. Nor are people youtubing entire films and adding commentary tracks.



No ones playing Mass Effect to press buttons, they're playing it to be commander Shepard. Pressing buttons is just how you get Shepard to respond, and a reflection of the technology at hand. The notion that interactivity as an act is what's paramount compared to the in engine payoffs is of action and narrative advancement for gamers is a bit of a stretch tbh.

Ultimately any actual detailed adjudication needs to go to a law court to decide to determine case law to establish precedent. However having a bit of legal background I think the arguments for are on pretty rocky ground in truth.

If you're aware of our legal system, "truth" is on pretty rocky ground all the time. Be wary of casting stones and all that. Before the DMCA the prevailing truth was that almost all of these copyright claims are fraudulent wastes of time. Granted, it seems they're still fraudulent wastes of time, it's just that the DMCA allows them to be even more wasteful. Hooray legal system; wasting our time in new and ever more terrifying ways.

Also, people definitely play Mass Effect to press buttons. If they didn't the creators would simply do away with them.

 

[James93]

Looks like all the fears are a reality, it really sucks for those who do it for a leaving. But they have been milking it out for several years, and everyone had to see it coming.

 

[TyrantGuardian]

I love how putting in 50-60 hours per week, purchasing really expensive equipment and software, recording, editing audio and video, putting in a lot of work marketing your channel and other types of PR, in most cases as a one-person team apparently doesn't pass for "a real job".

What is wrong with some of you people?

 

[Amir0x]

Not really, it's more YouTube, although publishers might apply pressure. It's absolutely fine for publishers to upload their copyrighted material to YT's system, because it's bullshit that someone could be making money just by uploading licensed music to his channel without doing any extra work. The copyright owners "deserve" to run their ads instead.

It becomes problematic with LPs and fair use stuff though e.g. reviews. YT's algorithm doesn't make a difference between someone doing a review and someone uploading straight songs. But that's YT's problem..

So these copyright owners file with youtube, but Youtube's new algorithm is fucking the whole ship?

Fascinating stuff. Seems youtube lately is set on destroying everything people like about. Between this and Google+ integration, we really need a popular alternative at this point.

 

[rudieboy77]

Shit you wait till they start adding tiers to the internets, "they've" been talking about it for years since about the start of "web 2.0". Flagging a few videos will be nothing when the entire web turns into AOL circa 1997.

 

[Cyrano]

Shit you wait till they start adding tiers to the internets, "they've" been talking about it for years since about the start of "web 2.0". Flagging a few videos will be nothing when the entire web turns into AOL circa 1997.

If there's one evil overlord that can do it, Google is probably it.

 

[Kadayi]

Great video explaining the situation at hand from someone who's been experiencing content ID claims: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6-TOZat-wo

Definitely worth watching. The guy gets into some good details about the specifics, as well as some of the problems (like the takedown for ingame music for instance).

If you're aware of our legal system, "truth" is on pretty rocky ground all the time. Be wary of casting stones and all that. Before the DMCA the prevailing truth was that almost all of these copyright claims are fraudulent wastes of time. Granted, it seems they're still fraudulent wastes of time, it's just that the DMCA allows them to be even more wasteful. Hooray legal system; wasting our time in new and ever more terrifying ways.

Dude I'm just clarifying things because I have some legal knowledge. I don't personally have any stake in any of this so no need to get snarky just because you're upset.

Also, people definitely play Mass Effect to press buttons. If they didn't the creators would simply do away with them.

So it's not about fighting off the reaper menace and saving the galaxy, but it's actually about pressing A and X all the time?

 

[botty]

Google is so evil. This is why you should buy iPhones.