Jimquisition: Copyright War

[Makabriel]

Yeah, this whole thing just flabergasts me.. The big thing about the next gen consoles, especially PS4 is about sharing your game experience. With EVERYONE. I mean, Twitch TV? Hello?

It's not the content being out there that publisher's are scared of, it's the people that the content is associated with when it comes to highly viewed YouTube entries.

 

[Entitled]

Jim sounds about righ this time, but with his earlier video about which cases of piracy are and aren't "theft", he is also absolutely part of the problem.

You either buy into the "copyright is intellectual property" metaphor, or you don't. If you do, then removing youtube videos makes perfect sense, as they were also "taking" publishers "property" without their permission. Even if only little bits of it, and even if they didn't cause financial harm with it, and even if earlier the devs chose to give away pieces.

If it's their "property", then what happens to it is their call to the absolute. It's that simple.

You can't just buy into the analogy when you feel angry at a particular form of infringement, and reject it when it's about a type of it that you do want to liberalize.

Some copyright monopoly is needed to sustain basic industry activities, but it shouldn't be EVER be called "intellectual property".

 

[Roxas1359]

This is a bad thing that can lead to a good thing.
I do want that good youtubers that create original content will be free to do so, but this shouldn't give a free pass for those who just stream entire games without adding anything of their own.
Maybe this mess will encourage the publishers, google and content creators to put some effort and solve this problem. So in the future no one will have to be afraid of random take down notices. Meaning that if you create something original - your video stays up no matter what, but if you post a "silent movie" of you just playing the game it gets taken down.
I think that it's the randomness and the unfairness that is the main problem here and not google's ability to take down gameplay videos itself.

Thing is though, what about Long-Plays and other things, Walkthroughs have also been around for a while and also require editing down of footage as well, along with possible in-text stuff to show people things. Walkthroughs can tend to have just about as much work done on them as Let's Plays can. What's the main problem here is that Copyright Laws are so outdated, along with the fact that use content creators have to try to use the Fair Use Act of 1976 to try and defend ourselves, but it isn't enough anymore since the laws are so outdated. Jim is entirely right in this episode.

Mainly it also wouldn't matter because Google would just cave into the publishers to avoid any legal troubles, they've done it in the past before hand. The copyright system allows any random person to claim copyright on your video, it's all automated and there is no person actually monitoring it so most of the time content is falsely flagged.

Make your own alternative video site and write your own video codec? That would be rather labour intensive though.

I'm no programmer, I'd rather give my custom to another video site though if it can supply enough variety of content to be worthwhile, at-least for some of my viewing.

Well there is Game Anyone, a site entirely dedicated to uploading LPs and Video Game Walkthroughs and has been around since 2006. We use our own video codecs, support 60 frames per second on videos (YouTube only does 30 at max), and it's a rather pleasant site to say the least. ^.^

 

[Old Father Eternity]

Just a side note but, is it just me or is it getting increasingly difficult not to imagine the future as some messed up dystopia.
Yeah there are bright people, who fight against crap like this but the attempts just keep popping up, eventually there may be no sane mind left to offer opposition.
A grim outlook, yes, but one for which the probability seems to keep rising.

 

[SirPigglesworth]

When I used to watch gamegrumps I didn't watch for the gameplay I couldn't give two tosses about the game as long as the people playing it were entraining. The game itself never come into question (apart from when It was a game I already owned).

I don't know why these publishers are insisting that the free publicity they get (in the bloody millions no less) is somehow hurting their business. I'm calling it now, when a publisher has the nerve to touch a channel with a lot of fans. (as they have been doing with the small ones) there will be boycotts and tantrums and YouTube shall lose most of its revenue (as LP's are the highest viewed video type)
First of all they are not showing all the videos from a channel you are subscribed to, (effectively killing smaller channels and making me worried about the things I am planning to put on my channel) now they are having a system of pre-approving killing the income of things like the Angry Joe, JonTron, and Jim Sterling himself and allowing corporate YouTube channels to show you designated viewing content. The vast majority of the channels I subscribe to contain game videos (not for commentary but related humour) and If they get taken down I will have no problem deleting my account and fucking off to daily motion or something where they seem to give a toss about the content creators.

 

[UberPubert]

I don't necessarily mean one not owned by a corporation of some sorts, but rather not one which freely gives other corporations the right to remove any content they judge to be infringing without any sort of oversight as Google does now. I don't think YouTube's huge market share is impregnable, look what happened to MySpace, just the right competitor needs to come along... (and probably become equally terrible in the end, but such is the circle of life right?).

Well, it depends on your point of view: Is Google really the problem, or is it the corporations? If we assume any hosting site with as much power as youtube will eventually be corrupted via greed or what have you then yes, it would probably happen again. But if we see Google as uniquely blind to the kind of problem this creates when we could probably find another site to count on, at least until the next media-sharing breakthrough comes along (smart money is on smell-o-vision, mmmm).

 

[Entitled]

I don't necessarily mean one not owned by a corporation of some sorts, but rather not one which freely gives other corporations the right to remove any content they judge to be infringing without any sort of oversight as Google does now. I don't think YouTube's huge market share is impregnable, look what happened to MySpace, just the right competitor needs to come along... (and probably become equally terrible in the end, but such is the circle of life right?).

Megavideo didn't take down many videos... The FBI took down Megavideo.

Google isn't taking down that many videos because they want to, but because if they were any slower than they are right now (and oversight would make them A LOT smaller, they would legally get charged with allowing piracy.

Not to mention, that Fair Use is currently a rapidly shrinking grey zone, that copyright holders try to interpret as strictly as possible. Many creative videos on youtube ARE in fact violating copyright in it's current state, and even a through analysis would decide that applying censorship to them is necessary.

 

[Something Amyss]

This isn't new or related to gaming exclusively. Back in the Napster days, I knew people banned for sharing their own content or the content of people the claimants didn't have the rights to. This would continue over multiple P2P sources, where people who legitimately owned the rights could not share their own media with others. Because the music industry casts its net wide too, and doesn't even care if they own the copyrights. You're a dirty thief.

I've mentioned before that I got a warning for sharing my own music over a P2P network. I am not, nor have I ever been, a professional musician on a label's bankroll. That didn't stop them.

So yeah. Copyright law and corporations have too much fucking power. And fear of lawsuits keeps everyone else at risk of legal trouble.

Hooray!

But rejoicing it as a whole? WHY!?

People immediately started saying things like "if it gets rid of PEwDiePie," which is horribly horribly ironic because he's one of the safer YouTubers in terms of this. Jim already mentions he's got soopah speshul permishon or something. And we'll see more of that, you bet your ass.

But honestly, if the choice is getting rid of PewDiePie or keeping honest reviews (and Jim), I'll take the latter every time. But this is the internet, where throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a national sport.

Would be funny if the whole situation would turn into some kind of media blackout where it seems like no one cares about this or that new title because no one talks about it because everyone's afraid that the company might have their bots flag your videos.

I would looooooove to freaking see that.

[
"I'm all for destroying every song Metallica has ever made if it also gets rid of Justin Bieber."

Normally these comparisons require there to be a downside. This looks win-win to me.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I think the best option would be to severely punish copyright holders who flag things falsely, make them hire people to troll through videos for copyrighted content.

Three strikes on both sides, if you infringe copyright three times your youtube account is disabled. However if a company or one of their representatives makes a false copyright claim three times they lose the ability to make claims for a year at the least.

That's kind of the problem really. The whole thing is one-sided.

From what I've heard,[sub][sub]If this is somewhat wrong, please tell me. Nicely![/sub][/sub], once you get your third strike, you're dead before you can even have a chance to protest, and it's apparently a very long process to ask YouTube to look into it for you if you've gotten to that point.

This all really could be fixed if they just let the YouTubers[sub]or whatever you call them[/sub] have a few more ways to prove if they are innocent before they lose their channel.
Or they could be more specific with their policing.

Though, I do understand that it is difficult. What with YouTube being as big as it is.

Though, it should change before it does too much damage. We've already seen events where people have been trying to abuse the copyright stuff to shut people up who were talking bad about a game.

Like with Jim being black listed by Konami, and with TotalBiscuit and the game "Garry's Incident".

Spoiler: Video for reference.

 

[Evonisia]

My my these extra Jimquisitions are a welcome treat. Well anyway it was a good video and I can't wait for Monday's.

 

[Something Amyss]

If it's their "property", then what happens to it is their call to the absolute. It's that simple.

That's not even the case of physical property, so I'm not sure why Jim's wrong for intellectual property where usages are already detailed.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Hey Jim, would it be okay if I shared this with my Producing professor? I showed her your piracy vid and one day I noticed it pop up on her list of "additional information" online reading list.

Just wanted to say you're fighting the good fight and people in other industries can relate!

 

[synobal]

As someone who had found out about and bought a lot of games due to LP's I find this troublesome.

That said I do PC games but a good way to get me not to buy your game is to let that moron pewdiepie be the only one do LP's of your game.

Still long life PC gamers!

 

[Psychobabble]

"I never needed any of you do any of this shit."

Wise words, but sadly words that will fall on deaf ears. These gargantuan publishers have their snakes nests of hydra heads so far up their own asses they've forgotten any reality exists beyond their own diseased rectums. With the huge sums of money sunk into each venture the family tree of overseers every decision must pass through to get made is more convoluted, vicious and incestuous than the entire cast of Game of Thrones. And you know what? I'm fine with that. The more of this self absorbed horse shit they pull the weaker their bloodlines become. As of now most of the AAA publishers are starting to resemble the syphilitic, hemophiliac, inbred aristocracy of a few centuries past. And just like many of our ancestors did, I hope soon we peasants will rise up, denounce and behead these drooling monstrosities.

Side note. Google can't step in and protect anyone as I feel they are part of the corporate clusterfuck that is working to disenfranchise the everyday web user for their own corporate gain. Google's new corporate slogan should be "We know who you are, we know where you live, we know where your children go to school. We fucking own you."

Great episode, but you are fooling no one Sterlingbot 29000.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Yeah, this whole thing just flabergasts me.. The big thing about the next gen consoles, especially PS4 is about sharing your game experience. With EVERYONE. I mean, Twitch TV? Hello?

It's not the content being out there that publisher's are scared of, it's the people that the content is associated with when it comes to highly viewed YouTube entries.

A fair point, but keep in mind that with the PS4's(and others) game sharing things, there will be a lot more control on what can be done with it.

They will likely be able to pull ANY videos they don't like, for ANY reason.

Also, I'd like to point to a point Jim made quite some time ago about blocking YouTube videos.

That it not only hurts the youtuber, but also the people who own the games. Because when you break it down, a lot of reviews and lets-plays are pretty much free advertising for the games.

Heck, Jim even said he wasn't using any video bits that they weren't already putting out for free as trailers/b-roll footage for one that got pulled.

Which makes the whole thing just seem like a dumber move on the copyright owners side.

But rejoicing it as a whole? WHY!?

People immediately started saying things like "if it gets rid of PEwDiePie," which is horribly horribly ironic because he's one of the safer YouTubers in terms of this. Jim already mentions he's got soopah speshul permishon or something. And we'll see more of that, you bet your ass.

But honestly, if the choice is getting rid of PewDiePie or keeping honest reviews (and Jim), I'll take the latter every time. But this is the internet, where throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a national sport.

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.

Plus, as you and others have said; This likely won't affect him.

[
"I'm all for destroying every song Metallica has ever made if it also gets rid of Justin Bieber."

Normally these comparisons require there to be a downside. This looks win-win to me.

Spoiler: Dx HEY! I like Bieber!

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

 

[Entitled]

If it's their "property", then what happens to it is their call to the absolute. It's that simple.

That's not even the case of physical property, so I'm not sure why Jim's wrong for intellectual property where usages are already detailed.

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.

Property is a moral right by default, and it's limitations need special, extra-imortant justifications, such as even bigger public benefits.

Publishers use the same logic to argue why every sound bite, every character design, every paragraph, and every plot that they come up with, needs to be absolutely controlled by them by default, unless there is a special, extra-imortant justification such as the public's need for basic communication through Fair Use or Public Domain.

They look at a video, and ask "It is mine. What could justify giving it away to the public?" Instead of "This is the public's communication. How can I justify asking for a necessary copyright control over it?"

They entirely ignore that free communication is also a moral good by default, as if it would all be a form of asking for "free stuff" out of other people's property, rather than a freedom which their control blocks by it's presence.

This is the same reason why copyright has been extended to artist's life + 70 years. They shifted the argument from "Is there a need to control this?" to "Is there a justification NOT TO control this?", and kept rationalizing all expansion with that attitude, as if a writer's grandchildren no longer controlling a literary classic's fate would be a tragic case of them "losing property", rather than them losing a market monopoly (that was granted to incentivize writing).

 

[ash12181987]

Do we happen to have a list of the publishers who are asking to have their games footage removed?

 

[wildpeaks]

And this is why we love Jim