This really really is just stupid. Publishers always shat where they ate but this feels like they are dugging uranium in their bed chamber.
JoJo said:
Maybe it's time for an alternative to YouTube, since the site seems to be becoming rapidly taken over by corporations and Google +. Anyone got any suggestions for a viable alternative video site?
Blip.tv is a very old and huge alternative that seems to have been forgotten. It was twitch before twitch even existed.
Costia said:
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.
No, it can not lead to a good thing. there is
nothing wrong with people streaming the entire game. you should not be forced to tiptoe around publisher utter stupidity just because they have enough money to buy laws only they like. you get takedown notices for
written reviews, and legally you MUST shut down the review and spend hundreds of dollars to prove that it wasnt copyright inflingement before you can show it again, because copyright law works backwards. everyone is guilty until proven otherwise.
If creating something original would mean the video stays up no matter what you would need to recode the whole Youtube system AND change copyright law. you know, something that should ahve been done decades ago.
Grabehn said:
I've never understood if it's just one dumb guy calling the shots on whatever video that has any relation to their content, no matter how minimal it might be, or just a bot launching infringement notices everywhere.
PS: Hope this is enough to not count it as "low content" Escapist
Its a bot. And youtube removing videos is a bot too. There is actually no human involvement for removal of your videos. Youtube removes ALL claims no matter true or false. And the claim bot can be configured to do anything really.
Scorpid said:
I'd like to know what people are celebrating the attempted muzzling of YouTubers? Also if YouTube does continue to allow this, isn't the internet far larger then YouTube, won't the contributers just migrate to another service like DailyMotion or somethin?
see the problem isnt so much youtube as publishers ability to legally block ANY content it wants. If enough people migrate to, say, Dailymontion, thats the one thats going to get all the notices then.
Desert Punk said:
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 wont happen. you know why? its too logical!
Andy Shandy said:
[sub]And christ, if you hate the guy that much that you want to affect his livelihood, there is a simpler option, you could just not watch his videos[/sub]
Actually there are browser plugins that hide his videos. I have modified it to hide couple youtubes i dislike and i havent seen their videos show up anywhere. you wont have to see him and others cna see it if they want to, works for both sides imo.
shadowstriker86 said:
Guys, can we PLEASE get Jim into the oval office or something? Already a proven leader with millions of loyal viewers ready to vote him in, what's the holdup?
Not sure about age requirements in US, but here we have restriction that people younger than i think 30 cannot go to our equivalent of oval office. 45 years for president. I believe Jim is younger (if i remember correctly from dismal jester)
UberPubert said:
Best not to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity. The fact of the matter is that while there's some very tech savvy people who do the work, they're being told to do it by lawyers, who have been given orders by CEO's, who are just parroting the whims of stockholders. Said stockholders have no qualifications for running a business other than having loads of money, and chances are they're like the average person: Still thinking the internet is just for checking their Facebook and ordering dragon dildos. I seriously doubt they have any idea what the LP community is like.
On the contrary, always atribute malice unless stupidity is proven. If you atribute malice as stupidity due to lack of knowledge you may end up dead. If you atribute stupidity as malice at worst you will punish a stupid person for sdoing stupid things.
As for the rest of your comments, it is tech savy peoples responsibility to show the rest what will come of it. because if they jtu go along with it they will get blamed for it anyway.
JoJo said:
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.
It owuld have to be hosted in a country that hasnt signed international law help treaties though. becuase google is legally forced to do what thier doing you know. they just automated the process to the level of easily abusable.
Shadow-Phoenix said:
Great video as always Jim.
After seeing most of the conversations going on in this thread I've now learned two things:
1)We should love and adore every LP'er out there (even Pew it appears).
2)We should hate,spite and scorn every publisher on Youtube because it's not their property apparently.
I can't seem to remember what life was like before LP'ers came along and what those LP'ers used to work as for a living but I'm sure we'll never find out because who needs a real job when you can sit home and play vidya games all day for Youtube.
actors and comedians were around for thousands of years, it just moved to videogames as well with LPs. nothing really "new" here to begin with.
And no, publisher does NOT and should NOT own my videos.
Entitled said:
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.
Some copyright monopoly is needed to sustain basic industry activities, but it shouldn't be EVER be called "intellectual property".
JIm is consistent, rewatch his videos.
Copyright monopoly is not needed, but could be acceptable if it was reasonable (<15 years term, working first sale doctrine, fair use, derivative works, ect).
Neronium said:
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. ^.^
I looked at this. Selection seems to be ok (not as big as youtube but as long as i can find what i need im fine). the listing is... confusing. everything is a walktrough. how do i know if its a lets play or its a silent walktrough?
the quality also does not seem to be good. i picked a 2009 game uploaded in 2011 and it was running in something that looked like 260p youtube quality. and it also had a link to youtube in the corner maknig me wonder if it wasnt just a stream from youtube video to begin with. Id love to have an alternative site and use it, but so far it does not seem up to par. unless im being an idiot and thats likely.
Scrumpmonkey said:
The thing that really Gauls me is that companies like Nintendo are claiming ANY footage from their games is their property. (This also ignores the basic principles of gaming be an interactive medium but that is a separate discussion) In fact people are allowed, expressly allowed, to use footage from games, films, moives etc. etc. under UK law, EU law and especially the US idea of 'fair use'.
The reaoson companies like nintendo are claiming that is because copyright law claims that. yes, copyright law contradicts others.
Entitled said:
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".
If you own a car you are allowed to share it with others without getting special permissions from car manufacturer.
Property is a moral right by default, and it's limitations need special, extra-imortant justifications, such as even bigger public benefits.
no. Property is a legal right.
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.
Using flawed logic to excuse flawed logic is still flawed logic.
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?"
More like "It is their video. How can i control it?"
Altorin said:
yeah, except that it doesn't really NEED *ALL* of Youtube's server capabilities. Youtube is just utterly glutted with trash that noone watches. Ever. Stuff people just upload for themselves or whatever. Last statistic I heard on it, 48 hours of footage was uploaded to youtube every hour. So really, it's impossible for less then 50 people working non-stop to watch it all, and I imagine 90% of it is total trollop horseshit.
Not to mention, a few big names move house, that will benefit the third party immensely, allowing them to grow at the expense of Youtube.
Youtube has thousands of people watching it all the time, millions even. so its very much possible.
Heck, i created a game series of a 15 year old games expansion pack that was an experiment and i expected noone to see it. the videos got over 20 views. i think even more now.
gyroscopeboy said:
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?
No. they dont. Would you buy a game if you could not watch a lets play? Would you buy a game if noont ever shown you what its about? if you like buying cats in a bag then you could consider it a lost sale.
Someonetookmyname said:
Could somebody do me the favor of explainig what the difference between a publisher and a gamecompany, like Bethesda, is? Where is the line drawn? What does the publisher do?
Gamecompany can be both publisher and developer. Publishers publish stuff. Developers are the ones actually making them. Sometimes, as for example Bethesda game studios, it is both a developer and a publisher. There are developers that self-publish (mojang for example).
zumbledum said:
if this means less talentles cretins making bank by screaming like a demented 12 year old girls, well im all for it. but then if they pout a law infront of me that would euthanise these people and all their fans id sign it as my good deed to the gene pool
Lets ban music if it means we get rid of justin bieber.
immortalfrieza said:
Google:"B-but! But! We're not evil! Our motto says so!"
See, their motto "dont be evil" is about telling us not to be evil. they dont want us to overshoot them at being evil.
Jandau said:
The problem here is that the publishers want to have their cake and eat it too (never quite understood that figure of speech, but whatever).
Its sort of a paradox that will work with any food. If you have a cake you havent eaten it yet. If you eat it you no longer have the cake (you ate it). yet the companies want to both have it and have eaten it. they want so much that is not possible.