Jimquisition: Copyright War

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Copyright War

In this extra Jimquisition episode, Jim tackles the spark of the Copyright War, as YouTube allows publishers to cut through its videos like a legal reaper, claiming all sorts of content and causing a ton of trouble.

Watch Video
I sincerely hope you get away with this one, Jim. All they have to do is send an email to your paymasters at The Escapist. "No Halo 5 coverage if you don't fire Jim Sterling." Or GTA 6 or Saints Row 4 or 5 or whatever the hell number we're on by now. I could see EA having the clout to pull it off all by themselves. But since they're pretending they give a shit about their image suddenly, they'll probably just encourage their fellows to pool their resources and take you down. It's not like it would cost them anything. All they have to do is threaten to deny the Escapist access, and your dream job goes up in smoke. The poetry, the industry commentary, all of it. Maybe they'll still let you do the podcast if their tentacles don't reach that far yet. But you're not immune to under-the-table dealings. You won't even see it coming. It's not like your editor's going to tell you, "Oh, hey, the video game companies you called fuckers decided they're finally sick of you. What do you want me to do?" They'll just announce a "site redesign" or some bullshit and you and whoever else has been giving them trouble will discover that your passwords no longer work.

They don't have to keep you quiet. All they have to do is pull the plug on your microphone.
 

UberPubert

New member
Jun 18, 2012
385
0
0
Strazdas said:
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.
I'm confused; you opened your very own post by saying that the decision was stupid, why would you then go on to explain that we should assume it's evil? If we can reasonably figure out that the decision being made is not actually to their benefit then surely we can also just as well assume the decision is in fact due to ignorance on their part, and I'm of the mind that charging someone with crime and intent when we have every reason to believe it was an accident is wrong.

The employees responsible for building the bots are literally just doing their jobs, they have no responsibility beyond that. If someone left (or was fired for not complying), another would take their place, and we'd be right back where we started, and there'd be no breaking of the cycle because what they're doing isn't at all illegal and unless they had a vested interest in the LP community they'd be ignorant of the matter and I doubt anyone could blame them for not caring. In fact, we already see they're not in this thread: Almost everyone here is hating on the publishers, including Jim.
 

UberPubert

New member
Jun 18, 2012
385
0
0
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.
What would be the point of moving to a different website if it didn't allow for all the people posting "trollop horseshit", and the kind of audience that watches it, though? The entire point of asking for an alternative to youtube is so that random people can still post their own material at whim and garner a larger, more inclusive Let's Play community that everyone has access to and can watch. Otherwise? The largest content creators (who undoubtedly would be unable to agree on a single website) would be divided, their audiences split and tired due to the lack of convenience, and everyone would lose.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
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)
It basically means that they want to consume their cake, but at the same time they want to physically have it in front of them.
 

keniakittykat

New member
Aug 9, 2012
364
0
0
Fuck off, indeed, Jim.
I really hope that there'll be a youtube alternative soon. (Wasn't the piratebay working on something like that?)
 

Jandau

Smug Platypus
Dec 19, 2008
5,034
0
0
erttheking said:
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)
It basically means that they want to consume their cake, but at the same time they want to physically have it in front of them.
Ah, so having the cake refers to still possessing it after they have consumed it? That makes sense, thank you :)
 

Sotanaht

New member
Mar 6, 2008
70
0
0
Vausch said:
Imp Emissary said:
Indeed. Thank God for you, Jim. =w= b

Also, side question;

Who is happy about this!? [sub]Besides publishers, of course[/sub]

I guess if you don't like a specific youtube personality, you could be happy that they are getting the screws put to them, but I don't see one guy/gal you don't like getting burned being worth all the others you may like/don't hate also getting burned.

But rejoicing it as a whole? WHY!?

P.S. You really don't need them, Jim!
You have all of us. ;3
Pewdiepie. Within 5 comments on the first break of this news on Escapist, someone mentioned "If this gets rid of Pewdiepie then I'm all for it".

I think it's the most ridiculous that these publishers will sue for lets plays of games that are impossible to get any more. Like, you literally cannot get the game new, even digitally. But they will still sue.
They don't want to compete with themselves. If no one can remember their past glories (or less-than-total failures) then the present failures have a much lower bar to be measured against.
 

schmulki

New member
Oct 10, 2012
101
0
0
Hey, welcome to the Copyright is Evil party. You're quite late, but hey, better late than never! If anyone wants to know more about what's going on, check out these guys, they do a great job of at least keeping you informed of what is going on on that front (but be warned, they're definitely opinionated, so you might not always agree with everything posted there): http://www.techdirt.com/
 

Wntrmt

New member
Dec 11, 2013
4
0
0
The problem with copyright, dmca, youtube (or any site really), etc is the difficulty in proving when something is fair use.

Reviews, for example, are going to be fair use. Lets plays more than likely count too if the player is commenting, etc.

Good luck fighting that stuff though, you'll need it.
 

RionP

New member
Feb 22, 2012
19
0
0
Vausch said:
Pewdiepie. Within 5 comments on the first break of this news on Escapist, someone mentioned "If this gets rid of Pewdiepie then I'm all for it".
There's only one correct response to this:
Jim Sterling mentioned that Pewdiepie is getting exclusives from some companies who block everyone else, while the only video I know of which was specifically targeted by a person rather than through automated bots, was TotalBiscuit's review of Garry's Incident.

Should there be a truly massive crackdown on almost all Let's Players, who do you think will be shut and who will be allowed to continue (and there will be people who are allowed to continue): The shameless sellouts, or the critical and pro-consumer reviewers?
 

Kittyhawk

New member
Aug 2, 2012
248
0
0
This is funny and sad, because its coming from Google, a company that was once small and enjoyed the benefits as such. The very day Google purchased Youtube, though I could see something like this eventually going down. Google have become the faceless man that they once rallied against. Hell, the very creation of Youtube was to get away from the established chains placed on and largely limiting video content. Now, Youtube is just another owned tube thing online, as the powers that be try to strangle/shackle the internet.

For publishers to begrudge certain gamers/reviewers etc from a few dollars from fans is just plain sad. I think its time for many who upload vids out there to close their Youtube accounts and set up shop elsewhere. Twitch, Ustream, Vimeo etc are all very useable and valid options. Youtube's loss is some other sites gain.

As for publishers, I think that what we need next is an annual Anti-Publisher Day. Its plain to see that as the industry shuns them and their bankrupt creativity more, only they lose in the end. Nothing wrong with their games as such, just the crappy corporate attitudes that spoil things for their customers.

Nintendo, Sega, Activision and Capcom, this is no way to treat those who fill your coffers.
 

matt87_50

New member
Apr 3, 2009
435
0
0
How can you say you didn't need publishers to make any of this episode, that's entirely about publishers?
 

shadowstriker86

New member
Feb 12, 2009
2,159
0
0
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?
Strazdas said:
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)

just looked it up right now, age req. is 35. That sucks. Do they just put 35 because it's at an age where they "think" (and i use the word very lightly) people are less inclined to disagree with sponsers?
 

jdarksun

New member
Nov 3, 2003
87
0
0
Awesome show, Jim. More people need to be watching your videos to see the shit that publishers are trying to pull here.
 

Slash2x

New member
Dec 7, 2009
503
0
0
This is why I like FTL the developer even put it on their site, upload monatize whatever with our game footage just put it out there for people to see. No need to contact them it is in the FAQ on the main page. Indies will keep growing stronger with this kind of consumer positive policy.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,749
6
43
Country
USA
This is why we need games to be defined as art. A paint company can not claim ownership of a painting that someone makes with their paints. The same should apply to games, as the video content created by a user was created by that user, and not the company that merely provided the tools and materials to create that video.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Funny thing is I think that most of the videos are for profit thus need copy right permission, when you are for profit you have to get the license IMO. Of course it dose not not help there is not a system in place where you sign up post your stuff and they get a cut of any ad rev.And no I do not think opinion driven media can claim fair use fact driven yes opinion driven no not under our glorious copy right masters these days.