Support NeoGAF

[MadMod]

If a developer does that, they shouldn't be supported anyway.

That was an example, remember that Developer who tweeted about Donald Trump supporters? The developer said that everyone who voted for Trump shouldn't buy their game. Now imagine that developer blocking everyone on YT who voted for Trump? Its just a bit ridiculous, I think. I know exactly why they tweeted that, but if it was for the wrong reasons, it can be abused.

Developer is MidBoss.

 

[Raonak]

I mean, if movies/music can deny the right for streaming their content... why not games?

 

[James Scott]

I don't like what PDP did, or make videos on YT. But this is a precedent that shouldn't be set. Developers shouldn't be allowed to choose who gets to play their games and upload videos on YT. Imagine the power of a developer that hates women for example, therefore he decides to DMCA every female on YT off of his game? Its just a bit too much power. If its only this one case, then sure. But if someone says "they did it, why can't we?" Then we have a problem. I just don't want the system to be abused, its already abused enough as is.

The developer would get a ton of hate if that "what if" example ever happened.
We've also had a ton of comments like this "I don't like pewdiepie, but..." "slippery slope" etc

 

[Netherscourge]

I'm fine with creating a new precedent for this.

DMCA should be used to prevent racists from defaming the work of developers.

I wouldn't want some asshole like PDP ruining my game by saying racist shit on a live stream or in a video where he's playing my game.

It reflects poorly on the game and makes me think the playerbase as a whole is like that.

I hope they sue and I hope they win. It's worth it to shut down streaming if it means less racists.

Ending racism > Freedom to stream

Sorry, but that's fact. Racism is why we can't have nice things - so kill the racism first.

 

[MadMod]

The developer would get a ton of hate if that "what if" example ever happened.
We've also had a ton of comments like this "I don't like pewdiepie, but..." "slippery slope" etc

Guess I'm just giving more examples of the slippery slope, to add to that side of the argument, its just a really interesting topic. (see post 501)

 

[Zolo]

That was an example, remember that Developer who tweeted about Donald Trump supporters? The developer said that everyone who voted for Trump shouldn't buy their game. Now imagine that developer blocking everyone on YT who voted for Trump? Its just a bit ridiculous, I think. I know exactly why they tweeted that, but if it was for the wrong reasons, it can be abused.

Developer is MidBoss.

Then find different games and developers

Then those people can play other games from other developers. Even putting aside from the backlash decisions to block people like James Scott said.

 

[James Scott]

Guess I'm just giving more examples of the slippery slope, to add to that side of the argument, its just a really interesting topic. (see post 501)

Well, we can deal with that if it ever happens. Don't see anyone being so drastic as to block every Trump supporter but I could see more developers blocking those that spew hate.

 

[MadMod]

Well, we can deal with that if it ever happens. Don't see anyone being so drastic as to block every Trump supporter but I could see more developers blocking those that spew hate.

Based off the MidBoss tweet. Which seemed like they were acting panic stricken and impulsive at the time. I believe they would have done so if they had the power. I'm just saying restrict giving people that much power in the first place. Maybe a solution would be a very slow process only for worst case scenario's.

Tweet:

 

[Archanfel]

I don't agree with the precedent. Games need criticism without any protection from it whatsoever. However, platforms that host this sort of hate speach need to pay attention to it and eliminate the source. I really wish YouTube and Twitch along with other social media sites would (and maybe they do) include a no hate/harassment speach clause in their TOS that if you violate period then you get banned. Though pewds makes them money so I'm sure they'd just slap him on the wrist (if that).

A dude streaming himself playing video games for other people's amusement doesn't immediately qualify as criticism

That's fine. Like I said Ban him from streaming then, not the whole damn game.

 

[Zolo]

Based off the MidBoss tweet. Which seemed like they were acting panic stricken and impulsive at the time. I believe they would have done so if they had the power. I'm just saying restrict giving people that much power in the first place. Maybe a solution would be a very slow process only for worst case scenario's.

No business worth their salt would do this. It would be restricted to selective Indie developers. And the can always find more games from more developers to play. It's not the end of the world if a few developers stop people from monetizing their playthroughs. I'd much rather deal with how to minimize racism on Youtube.

 

[Nanashrew]

No business worth their salt would do this. It would be restricted to selective Indie developers. And the can always find more games from more developers to play. It's not the end of the world if a few developers stop people from monetizing their playthroughs. I'd much rather deal with how to minimize racism on Youtube.

Well, the tiki torches company told white supremacists to get lost.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

My business partner & this thread reminded me that when the TV series Supernatural wanted to use Cthulhu Saves the World footage in one of their HP Lovecraft-themed episodes, they not only asked permission but send over a contract for everybody to sign so that there wouldn't be any legal issues down the road.

As you can see from this clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyS1CThlaJw - the game footage is just a tiny bit of the overall episode. They might have been able to employ a Fair Use defense if challenged (it's a tiny clip, it's not the focal point of the scene, and it's used as an Easter Egg & to add ambience), but they wanted to do everything by the books and avoid any possible problems.

 

[Pepboy]

I mean, if movies/music can deny the right for streaming their content... why not games?

The usual claim is that streaming games is a transformative work. Because they are interactive, they require active input. This is also evidenced by the fact that its rare that silent lets play videos are most popular. I think it's usually the decisons they make, the voiceover and reactions that they feel are transforming the work.

But I'm not an expert on copyright law, and I think this is still an evolving area.

 

[Auto-Reply]

They shouldn't have that power, but Youtube created that problem in the first place by making a business out of it incorporating the users, you introduce money, you introduce problems. If it all goes down the drain and everything gaming related disappears from youtube (talking about going down the drain for the viewers, not the content creators that monetize their stuff) then Youtube/Google is to be blamed for it.

They are not willing to put in the effort or don't care so things will escalate until the problem solves itself (whatever that means) or they get their shit together.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

The usual claim is that streaming games is a transformative work. Because they are interactive, they require active input. This is also evidenced by the fact that its rare that silent lets play videos are most popular. I think it's usually the decisons they make, the voiceover and reactions that they feel are transforming the work.

But I'm not an expert on copyright law, and I think this is still an evolving area.

A fair use analysis is always going to be done on a case by case basis.

One of the biggest examples of that is considering what game is actually being played. The entire idea of copyright is to protect the ability of the creator to profit from a game. Any real fair use analysis is going to be different when you're talking about someone using footage of Super Mario Bros thats 30 years old versus someone capturing a game that came out 2 days ago.

I really don't personally buy the excuse that an LP is transformative, because the key test for being transformative is that you're turning someone else's content into something new and unexpected, and there is probably no verb more expected to be paired with "video game" than "play".

 

[Anung]

The risk is that unsympathetic reviewers like Jimquisition will be rejected to avoid negative game coverage.

Jim Sterling and his criticism falls under and is protected by fair use. Using video to highlight criticism is fine and protected. The stuff with Digital Homicide solidified his ability to use criticism without being silenced. Plus Jim is blacklisted from a lot of big publishers and that hasn't hindered his ability to criticise or his right to do so.

LP's don't have that luxury and no one wants to be the one to initiate a discussion that could potentially lead to a definitive legal ruling that could fuck every Let's Play content creator and destroy the gravy train.