Jimquisition: Copyright War

[Aardvaarkman]

If you hosted the content on your own site fair use would be a viable defense. Hosting on someone else's server, someone's who might also get sued for copyright infringement in addition to yourself should a company decide to follow through means that the hoster has every right to tell you what you can upload to their servers.

Right. I was talking about the legal definition of Fair Use, which is different to Youtube's policies. Youtube can basically do whatever they want, provided they aren't violating laws. There is no obligation for them to host content.

This is why Youtube pulling content does not violate Freedom of Speech - the speaker is still free to express themselves, but Youtube is under no obligation to provide the means for that speech to be distributed.

 

[Entitled]

It clearly is property. I'm dumbfounded that this needs to be demonstrated, as it is obvious to anybody who is familiar with the modern world. Copyrights are bought and sold every day. Patents and trademarks can be worth billions of dollars. there are companies that exist just to own patents.

Pretty much every country in the world's legal system recognises intellectual property. Companies list their intellectual property as valuable assets of the company, that contributes to the worth of the company. For example, the Coa-Cola brand has significant value - even though the fizzy sugared water they sell is a generic product, having the Coca-Cola brand on it is very valuable and brings in a lot of money.

If copyrights, patents and trademarks can be bought and sold, and are considered valuable by the market, then how are they not property?

None of the statements that you have made are exclusive to property. Many abstract concepts, from skills, and political positions, to emotions, locations, or permissions can "have a value", even specifically a financial one, that can somehow be profited from. That doesn't mean that they are best described by property ownership.

Sure, holding a copyright has a value. So does having a driving license, being the Pope, having sex, or going to school.

What's the "world of difference? The rights are the property. That's what "intellectual property" refers to - the rights. Just like mining rights are property.

"Intellectual property" refers to property, much in the same way as "character assassination" refers to assassinations, or "partial-birth abortion" refers to murdering babies that are more "born" than fetuses.

In other words, it doesn't. It's an informal terminology that has little to do with copyright's actual legal position as a government-granted monopoly.

Mining rights are not property. Mines themselves can be property, but if you are thinking of the traditional exclusive government-granted monopolies on mining a material, those WERE also monopolies rather than properties, traditionally given away in similar royal Letters Patent as the first copyrights, and as what came to be known as patents.

The problem begins when they start to equalating "owning the copyright", with "owning the intellectual property", a.k.a. "owning the game", and claim that holding copyright regulations must come with every concievable aspect of control, because it is "their property", "their game".

But nobody's saying that. You've just misunderstood what "intellectual property means.

You are saying it right now. In one minute you are saying this:

You can't own ideas, even under current intellectual property laws. You can only own the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.

And also clarifying that what you call "property" is the publisher's outside control on copies:

If copyright would only extend to 14 years, a wide Fair Use permitting all derivative works, and legal non-commercial file-sharing, then copyright holders would still continue to "own the rights" granted to them in the remaining regulations.

Right. That's the property.

Then the next moment you are saying things like this:

You really aren't making any sense, because the same logic can apply to intellectual property. Any harm caused by intellectual property is incidental to its status as property, and does not affect its existence. A book would still exist if it is considered property or not, just as a car would still exist regardless of its status as property. What's the difference?

You are constantly changing your argument. I never said that cars polluting had anything to do with their ownership status. I said that pollution and the exploitation of resources is integral to the existence of cars. That they cause harm to everybody - this was in response to your "swinging my fist" argument, to show that physical property has effects on people other than the owner. You were claiming this was a unique property of intellectual property.

In one paragraph, you have shifted back from IP being "the rights granted to controlling copies of a book" to the intellectual property being "a book" itself.

I said that copyright "exists by the virtue of being legally defined". Yet you seem to disprove that by pointing out that "the book" would continue to exist, which has nothing to do with what IP controls in the first place.

If I own a car, and then it stops being recognized as property, the car will stay there. It will be stolen from me more easily, sure, but even then it will stay with someone else.

If I "own a copyright", the monopolistic control known under this name exists by being legally defined. If it stops being defined, then I instantly stop owning it, and no one else owns it any more either. Copies of the material that's creation it intended to encourage, might still be around, but the copyright monopoly itself not.

Cars can cause harm or benefit to the world by being objects.

Books can cause harm or benefit to the world by being objects.

Copyright monopolies cause harm or benefit to the world by being legally defined and enforced, and their definition as property changes how throughly they are expected to be enforced.

When videos that get taken down from youtube It isn't the games that can cause harm by putting too much of a limit to Freedom of Speech, but the related copyrights, the "intellectual property" that the games' producers claim to own next to the games themselves.

What thing with the Youtube Let's Plays? Who was prevented from speaking?

The people whose videos were removed under the claims of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's interpretation.

Because if that property wouldn't be legally secured, someone would control the mines and the sweatshops anyways, and over a long term, that control would still get codified as property.

And how is that not the case with intellectual property.

Because it is legal acceptation which makes copyright a thing. For example right now, copyright lasts 95 years, that's why you see 120 year works in the Public Domain, not owned or controlled by anyone. Just by not being the subject of a government monopoly, information is capable of being multiplied and accessed by anyone.

If property itself would last 95 years, it would still have to go into the singular possession of someone, presumably the government.

For physical objects, it is in their nature to be possessed by someone.

No, it is not. Physical object just exist. They don't have any desire to be possessed or not. You are also projecting cultural values onto this. Not all cultures and society believe in individual ownership.

In contrast, information is perfectly capable of being freely shared and copied in society, as it has been demonstrated by thousands of years of copyright-free systems.

Physical items are also perfectly capable of being freely shared and copied. And many cultures value expression over physical objects, and have rules about who is able to express certain things or disseminate information. It's been a pretty integral idea of major world religions.

You are taking that little antropomorphism too literally. I'm not saying that there is a consciousness behind objects, or that information literally "wants to be free".

But objects, being finite, rivalous materials that exist in space, have certain different ways of interacting with reality, than information, that is basically the abstract concept of people knowing stuff, and that multiplies by the act of people communicating with each other.

Societies can make active efforts to take away, divide, redistribute, or criminalize ownership of objects, but they can't make them replicate in the same way as information.

And vice versa, they can actively interfere with speech to limit, censor, copyright, or manipulate the spread of information.

But they are different "by default", meaning that assuming no higher effort is made, objects tend to remain with someone possessing them, while information tends to get copied and spread out, by the virtue of working the way they work.

Property is a negative right, it mostly consists of governments acknowledging possession or control that individuals have gathered anyways, and secure it with laws and policing.

Copyright is a positive right, it's subject, the copying authority, exists by the virtue of being invented by the government,

No, they are both the same. Both only exist by the consensus of a society or government.

Free Public Education, and Freedom of Religion also both exist by the consensus of a society or government.

This doesn't change the fact that the former is a positive right, while the latter is a negative right.

ALL LAWS are based on subjective human morality, but regardless of that, there are some basic conceptual differences between rights that oblige action, and rights that oblige inaction.

And yes, how objects would behave and data would behave in natural state without laws, are sources of how these concepts can be legally treated in a way that makes sense.

No, it did not. We have lost a lot of cultural and intellectual property due to things like cultural imperialism and genocide. Totalitarian regimes usually act very quickly to destroy cultures, art, and languages. Because they have a lot of value. People have fought to the death and sacrificed all of their physical property to save their cultures and ideals.

You are doing it again and mixing the copyright held over the information, with the actual material.

What cultural values we have lost due to censorship or vandalism, has nothing to do with the fact that copyright as a monopoly didn't exist, and didn't limit people's access to knowledge by any desperate need to compare itself to the scarcity of objects as possessions.

If you are mixing up copyright with the presence of cultural works, calling them interchargibly "Intellectual Property", then it could be said that we are losing more "Intellectual Property" due to "Intellectual Property" [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290181], than due to any genocide.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, a few others have mentioned that. I've not really heard many good things about PewDiePie, but I can say I wouldn't agree to mess other people up on the off chance he will be too.

I watched a video a couple years back, lost interest, then never watched another. I don't get the hate. But then....

Spoiler: Dx HEY! I like Bieber!

No I don't. ;p
It's all cool though. ;D
You seem pretty all right.

[/quote]

I read the spoiler, but I honestly find Bieber too forgettable to hate so I end up defending him sometimes. I mean, I'm not perfect. I occasionally watch an Angry Joe video even though the guy is annoying as fuck, but generally.... I just have no fucks to give, you know?

However, I understand Bieber as a cheap shot...XD

If you own a car, you are not obliged to share bits of it with others, not even if they are unintrusive and not costing you any harm so it is "Fair Use".

And even in cases where property rights are indeed legally limited (for example by taxation), their functioning is entirely the opposite of copyright.

If you own a car, you cannot stop people from taking pictures of your car.

And when property rights are legally limited, they function less like the opposite of copyright law and more like the limits on copyright or the ends of ones personal rights to intellectual property.

Sorry.

But this is the internet, where throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a national sport.

I hereby nominate this statement for 'Motto of the Moment'.

Seriously, is there a proper procedure for this?

If there isn't, there should be.

 

[Eve Charm]

"Fair use" doesn't work on let's plays. Reviews showing short clips of a game as long as it's not MAJOR PLOT is fine, But you can't fair use the whole or most of the game without devaluing the original

From the fair use doctrine
"The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"

Day one, month one even year one lets plays can destroy the value of a game. When a game is old enough and it isn't being remade, people stop caring. But for now expect to see crap and YOU SHOULD see crap if you buying a game to be the first to play and spoil it.

 

[Krantos]

" But you can't fair use the whole or most of the game without devaluing the original

Why not?

Seriously, why not? How does showing portions or even all of a game intrinsically devalue the game? Technically, a negative review will devalue the game. Should we not allow negative reviews to be posted?

How about trailers? If a trailer doesn't do a good job of selling the game, should the trailer be accused of Devaluing the title?

Really and honestly, how do you defend that stance?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Boil it down follow the revenue stream.At the end of the day I think most need a license but that license should be easy to get and revenue sharing with IP owners automatic. Youtube could have created a system that tries to split revenue and give IP owners a cut if they do not want it they fill out a form and that content is blocked.

Tho at the same time some of the content in question is clearly protected under fair use so the only way to correct it is mass lawsuits as the lawyers control everything.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

In other words, it doesn't. It's an informal terminology that has little to do with copyright's actual legal position as a government-granted monopoly.

Sorry, that's not true. It is a widely used term, and is accepted around the world. Just because you don't like it does not make it true. It's used as a technical term in business and in law.

Look, I don't like the abuse of intellectual property laws by corporations. I don't like the way copyright is constantly being extended. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Claiming that it doesn't does not help your credibility, because you are missing the foundation to have a proper argument.

In one paragraph, you have shifted back from IP being "the rights granted to controlling copies of a book" to the intellectual property being "a book" itself.

I did not change my argument. That was in response to your bizarre argument about the existence of things and property.

I said that copyright "exists by the virtue of being legally defined". Yet you seem to disprove that by pointing out that "the book" would continue to exist, which has nothing to do with what IP controls in the first place.

If I own a car, and then it stops being recognized as property, the car will stay there. It will be stolen from me more easily, sure, but even then it will stay with someone else.

And what does this have to do with anything? Property exists by being legally defined. If the car is not defined as property, the molecules that make it up continue to exist, sure, but it only becomes property due to legal definition. Just like copyright.

All property is about legal/moral/cultural definitions. It does not exist as a natural property.

If I "own a copyright", the monopolistic control known under this name exists by being legally defined. If it stops being defined, then I instantly stop owning it, and no one else owns it any more either.

Just like with physical property. If it is not legally defined as your property, then you no longer own it.

Copyright monopolies cause harm or benefit to the world by being legally defined and enforced, and their definition as property changes how throughly they are expected to be enforced.

Just like physical property.

What thing with the Youtube Let's Plays? Who was prevented from speaking?

The people whose videos were removed under the claims of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's interpretation.

But how are they prevented from speaking? They can still put the videos up on some other site. And they are still able to express themselves. Just because Youtube takes down your video doesn't mean you have been silenced or had your right to Freedom of Speech violated.

Because if that property wouldn't be legally secured, someone would control the mines and the sweatshops anyways, and over a long term, that control would still get codified as property.

And how is that not the case with intellectual property.

Because it is legal acceptation which makes copyright a thing. For example right now, copyright lasts 95 years, that's why you see 120 year works in the Public Domain, not owned or controlled by anyone. Just by not being the subject of a government monopoly, information is capable of being multiplied and accessed by anyone.

And it's legal acceptance that makes physical property a thing. And without copyright laws, people will use other methods to control access to their creation. The very idea of copyright is to allow works to become public property and stop people from hoarding information. Yes, that has been abused, but that was the intent. For example, patents are meant to discourage inventions from becoming trade secrets, so the invention can be openly developed.

If you are mixing up copyright with the presence of cultural works, calling them interchargibly "Intellectual Property"...

Except I am not. I've been quite clear in what I'm talking about, and you just keep bringing up irrelevant analogies and going off on tangents. My point was very simple. "intellectual property" exists as a form of property ownership, and it is an accepted term, and there's an immense mountain of evidence that shows it being treated as property. It is traded between companies for billions of dollars. The law recognises it as property.

You might want to change those laws, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

snip

I mostly agree with your train of thought. However I wonder if enough people are denied dose that not create a situation where people can band together and sue over youtubes inability to split hairs? Its a lot of if's I know but it seems to me they are opening up a can of worms rather than closing one.

 

[furai47]

Yet there are many people who buy games because they have seen a Let's Play of it,how do you think Indie or unknown games get popular?Let's Players more often than not help drive up sales especially the popuplar ones.

Indie developers usually say that you can let's play and use the game in your videos. They need the publicity, that is why they do it.
Major developers have no need for publicity because they have marketing departments and as such, they don't usually let you use their material without permission.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I mostly agree with your train of thought. However I wonder if enough people are denied dose that not create a situation where people can band together and sue over youtubes inability to split hairs? Its a lot of if's I know but it seems to me they are opening up a can of worms rather than closing one.

Frankly, I just hope people stop using Youtube. Youtube gained its huge market-share largely on the back of copyright infringement and also its lack of advertising. And then they turn around and start enforcing copyright and embedding ads, when they get big enough to own the market. Slimy hypocrites.

But as with everything online, it seems that being "free" has a cost far greater than money. By using such sites, you become Google's pawn. Perhaps the biggest cost is your loss of dignity. I'd rather pay for a video service (like I pay to use The Escapist) rather than be sold down the line to advertisers. Unfortunately, I seem to be in a small minority, as most people would rather get something for free while compromising their privacy and dignity in return. See also: "liking" companies on Facebook to get a chance to win a prize.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Yeah, a few others have mentioned that. I've not really heard many good things about PewDiePie, but I can say I wouldn't agree to mess other people up on the off chance he will be too.

I watched a video a couple years back, lost interest, then never watched another. I don't get the hate. But then....

Spoiler: Dx HEY! I like Bieber!

No I don't. ;p
It's all cool though. ;D
You seem pretty all right.

I read the spoiler, but I honestly find Bieber too forgettable to hate so I end up defending him sometimes. I mean, I'm not perfect. I occasionally watch an Angry Joe video even though the guy is annoying as fuck, but generally.... I just have no fucks to give, you know?

However, I understand Bieber as a cheap shot...XD

The first time I heard about Bieber was not by hearing his songs, but hearing people complain about him. ;p

Also: I too watch Angry Joe.

Yeah, his "personality" can be grating at times. Plus, I do kind of like the guy, so when he actually gets "mad"[sub][sub]for serious, not just for the show, or a review.[/sub][/sub] I just get a bit sad for him.
Like with the YouTube business stuff right now.

But besides that, he gives pretty in-depth reviews, and that's really what ya want in a review. Detail.

May you have a good day. =w= b (<- Thumbs up face)

 

[Webb5432]

The only reason I can think of for such copyright strikes are these:

1. The content posted is driving away potential customers via negative critique or that potential customers are not interested in what the game has to offer once they see it in action.

2. The content is legitimately being posted with the express intent of coloring the opinions of potential customers against the product.

3. The content is displaying spoiler material that can ruin a lot of tension and build-up for customers who have bought the game (Thankfully, we have *spoiler* labels for that, which fixes this problem).

4. The content is being used to fund the activities of another company/person who is 'piggybacking' on the popularity of the game.

Now, here is why I feel that these reasons, as legitimate as they are (they are actually pretty legitimate concerns) are not necessarily valid:

1. Being critical of a product is also called 'critique', such as reviews. Not only does current copyright law allow this, but it also factors into freedom of the press and freedom of speech. It also means freedom to be ignored (just because I say something does not mean you have to listen, this post included). Additionally, this knowledge is often used by consumers when deciding what to purchase. Another example of critique is car reviews, consumer reports, expert opinions, or in the case of Let's Plays and seeing the game in action, test driving a car or having a sample of a product at a grocery store. Now, admittedly the digital content spreads and travels faster, but if it is getting in the way of your product selling, maybe the problem is with your product and not the critique. Terrible games do not sell well because they are terrible, and the same goes with any product. The consumer deserves the right to see what they are getting into or at least have some knowledge of what they are getting into before they hand over their money for that product.

2. I hate to bring this up, but people are stupid. Individually, humans are very smart and incredibly intelligent, but in groups they get a temporary case of stupid. And that's okay (if it wasn't, there would be no good stories for comedians to tell). On that note, this comes back to freedom of the press and freedom of speech. The customers that are colored against your game are people who would probably not have bought the product in the first place, or are people you would not want buying them. Stand up for yourself, publishers. You do not need everyone's cash. And in some cases, maybe they are right and your games sucks, in which case it is your opinion that is colored. If that is the case, give yourself a reality check ASAP.

3. Like I said, we have *spoiler* labels to help with that. It's a wonderful courtesy on the internet, and one I personally am grateful for. Other than the fact that this problem has already been mostly dealt with, a product that relies on one feature (i.e. a twist in the end of a plot) will not last very long to begin with without other features (a good cast, engaging gameplay, etc.) being also good. M. Night Shamalyn (I think that's how you spell it) made a success of "The Sixth Sense" not because the movie had a twist ending, but a good plot, good mystery and good acting within a good setting. That is why that movie did so well. Otherwise, people would have left halfway and never seen the end of film with the big twist.

4. Okay, this is where it gets tricky. Yes, the content made by the developer is being 'piggybacked' by the Let's Players, because if there was no game there would be no Let's Play. That being said, the content only makes half of the Let's Play, and the commentator does the other half. It's a two-way street, but seeing as the interactive nature of games can create infinite possibilities within a good, organic game, then I would say that the possibilities that occurred during the video would belong to the Let's Player and not the company. Again, it's a two-way street. Additionally, let's talk about the co-optimal podcast on Youtube that Jim Sterling was a part of. According to TotalBiscuit, one of the podcasters in that video, because 1 minute of the 3 hour podcast was trailer footage of the new Pokemon game, Nintendo took all the advertising revenue from that video. Now, that is for 1/180 of the video. Does that sound odd? If I am a businessman and a big fan of Slipknot and have a short conversation with my client during which a million dollar deal is closed and we spend 1/180 of the time discussing our favorite Slipknot singles ("The Blister Exists" is my favorite) do I owe Slipknot the entire $1,000,000? No, I do not. Now, if their music was key to me closing the deal, then maybe I owe them 1/180 of the deal, but not the whole damn thing. I have to take some credit for myself and my client here too. Let's Plays and podcasts are, at least I believe, very similar in that respect. Yes, the game is important, but it is just a piece of the experience. The rest of the credit goes to the commentary, the jokes, the distinct choices, and the actions that the Let's Player is taking, and therefore credit also belongs to them. So my dear publishers, take your head out of the ground and realize you are not the sole thing of importance in this industry and just a part of the puzzle, like everyone else.


Anyway, I am done soap-boxing, so comment as you like.

 

[Jester076]

Bravo, Jim. Always a pleasure to hear you speak.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I mostly agree with your train of thought. However I wonder if enough people are denied dose that not create a situation where people can band together and sue over youtubes inability to split hairs? Its a lot of if's I know but it seems to me they are opening up a can of worms rather than closing one.

Frankly, I just hope people stop using Youtube. Youtube gained its huge market-share largely on the back of copyright infringement and also its lack of advertising. And then they turn around and start enforcing copyright and embedding ads, when they get big enough to own the market. Slimy hypocrites.

But as with everything online, it seems that being "free" has a cost far greater than money. By using such sites, you become Google's pawn. Perhaps the biggest cost is your loss of dignity. I'd rather pay for a video service (like I pay to use The Escapist) rather than be sold down the line to advertisers. Unfortunately, I seem to be in a small minority, as most people would rather get something for free while compromising their privacy and dignity in return. See also: "liking" companies on Facebook to get a chance to win a prize.

I understand that but no matter if you host it yourself your gong to have to go through some middle man to get your content known so its damned if you do damned if you don't. I mean if you go to another site the same thing is bound to happen.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I wasn't at all surprised by the youtube announcement. Signs of game companies abusing their power with questionable copyright claims have been happening for a few years now, especially on youtube.

And all I can say is this: It isn't the publishers exerting legal force for "just" reasons; it's a direct attack on gamer culture to better control the public's perception of their products. Copyright Law is outdated, broken, and easily abused, and for every defense a shill could make for these restrictions, I could debunk.

It's a power grab to accomplish two goals:
1) Silence those who aren't under the publisher's thumb to control or eliminate dissenting opinion (ideally those
2) Eliminate exposure of their older products to pave the way for Planned Obsolescence and that Service Centric future AAA suits jizz themselves to sleep over every night.

That's what I'm going with anyway, because it's the only logical explanation why companies like Sega put forth extraordinary effort just to remove videos about games that are literally years out of the market. Some by over a decade.

I'd like to hope that this act finally opens people's eyes and makes them realize just how awful both current Copyright Law is, and how rotten the AAA game publishers have become, but that's like asking for water from a stone.

Copyright Reform probably won't occur in my lifetime, barring some disaster in the greater media market.
And even then it isn't likely to happen given how deep Big Media's pockets are and the connections they have in Washington.

Even if we can't beat all of Big Media in Washington, we can still punish the AAA publishers by just not doing business with them. Or at least the ones who are pissing us off.

But there I go again wishing the market would do the impossible and actually vote with their fucking wallets.
(and for the record, I've been in an effective "boycott" with a good number of AAA publishers for years now, and have stuck with my boycotts to the letter. It's not that hard as long as you have a spine)

 

[Two-A]

I know it's not true for many other people, but when I watch a full Let's PLay, I then DON'T buy the game. It's why i've only bought one game this entire year, and that was GTA V. I guess those count as lost sales?

For most people it's the opposite ("Oh, this game looks fun, I'm gonna buy it!").

Your case is really odd though. You may be missing out by not buying them, watching a game is not as fun as playing it.

 

[Eve Charm]

" But you can't fair use the whole or most of the game without devaluing the original

Why not?

Seriously, why not? How does showing portions or even all of a game intrinsically devalue the game? Technically, a negative review will devalue the game. Should we not allow negative reviews to be posted?

How about trailers? If a trailer doesn't do a good job of selling the game, should the trailer be accused of Devaluing the title?

Really and honestly, how do you defend that stance?

When does showing spoilers directly from a game not Devalue or have a chance of devaluing it? Showing the ending can ruin a game or movie. It's hard to market a mystery when it's been spoiled already and so on and so on. People can see that very easily as devaluing.

Trailers on the other hand, DON'T show everything, same with excerpts on the box, and even if it does it's THEM spoiling THEIR OWN copyright.

On the other hand reviews aren't using the product itself to devalue it, it's just someone talking over basically a trailer of the game, As long as they don't use enough things like spoilers or the end, it isn't really devaluing the copyright.

I can defend this stance pretty damn easily, Watching someone play through a game like outlast, Made me not have to outlast and wait for it go on sale. If they weren't around I'd have to had paid and bought it during the release time, the most important part of the game's life to experience it.

 

[Eve Charm]

"Fair use" doesn't work on let's plays. Reviews showing short clips of a game as long as it's not MAJOR PLOT is fine, But you can't fair use the whole or most of the game without devaluing the original

From the fair use doctrine
"The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"

Day one, month one even year one lets plays can destroy the value of a game. When a game is old enough and it isn't being remade, people stop caring. But for now expect to see crap and YOU SHOULD see crap if you buying a game to be the first to play and spoil it.

Yet there are many people who buy games because they have seen a Let's Play of it,how do you think Indie or unknown games get popular?Let's Players more often than not help drive up sales especially the popuplar ones.

IT also drives people away from buying the game. You can't tell if tons of lets play will help or hurt your game so ESPECIALLY for some games it's not worth the risk.

While Outlast and Amnesia became great successes getting marketing they'd never could afford, You have a game like Beyond two souls that spend a lot of money to market themselves, and there are tons of Let's plays of the game even day one people were streaming it as soon as possible, and the game is selling like crap. Can a game like Beyond two souls a heavily story based game be spoiled by let's players? I think it's a good possibility