Jimquisition: Copyright War

[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

 

[gyroscopeboy]

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.

I'm not so sure.

For example, I LOVE the hitman series. I have every single game ever made. Yet, for financial/time constraints, I couldn't really commit to buying the latest one, so I checked out a Let's Play expecting to still purchase it later on. Once I'd seen it played through once I had no desire to purchase it.

The only games i'll buy after seeing gameplay footage are ones that are a bit more 'sandbox" where my experience may differ a lot from the person playing the LP.

Then again, maybe I'm just less of a gamer these days haha.

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

While this is quite true, I find it more than a tad ironic, considering that youtube advertised their purpose to content providers as a distributor of videos (speech).

It's probably why they stopped using the slogans "Express yourself" and "Broadcast Yourself".

Ahh, EULAs...letting companies backtrack on their word for any reason since the dawn of the Information Age.

Can a .... heavily story based game be spoiled by let's players? I think it's a good possibility

That demonstrates the weakness of the game more than anything.

I can say this, because the unique fundamental element that the medium of video games offers, is player agency. They don't just have a stake in the outcome of the story, they have an active role in said story.

Good games can tell great stories, but if a game can be experienced mostly through second hand observation, then clearly, player agency means little, and it's more akin to a movie than a game.

 

[Eve Charm]

That's a problem with story based games and is why I try to refrain from watching walkthroughs of those types of games.However if watching a Let's Play drives people away from buying the game then that's the game's fault for not making them interested enough to buy it.

Can a .... heavily story based game be spoiled by let's players? I think it's a good possibility

That demonstrates the weakness of the game more than anything.

I can say this, because the unique fundamental element that the medium of video games offers, is player agency. They don't just have a stake in the outcome of the story, they have an active role in said story.

Good games can tell great stories, but if a game can be experienced mostly through second hand observation, then clearly, player agency means little, and it's more akin to a movie than a game.

Really so it's the GAME's fault that it's not really a puzzle game or an open world sandbox but a game structured more like a book or movie with beginning, middle, climax, and ending... Well anyawy , Agree or disagree it doesn't really matter.

What does matter is you can CLEARLY see Linearly games can suffer. Great example of a non player agency game, point and click like secret of monkey island, can be easily watched rather then played.

Meaning lets plays of game like this can hurt the marketability of game, The Value of a game, and future sales of the game. That said, LET'S PLAY's would not fall under FAIR USE anymore and a copyright holder as Every right to yank it to protect their copyright. Just because it's a weakness of the game that if it's spoiled it's value goes down, doesn't me it shouldn't still be protected by it's copyright.

 

[furai47]

Except AAA marketing is deceptive and most major review sites mislead at best or lie at worst.That's why Let's Plays are important because they let you see the game for what it really is.

That's a problem with story based games and is why I try to refrain from watching walkthroughs of those types of games.However if watching a Let's Play drives people away from buying the game then that's the game's fault for not making them interested enough to buy it.

First quote:
That the buyer's problem. If you're not smart enough to inform yourself thoroughly about your purchase then it's your fault. Not to mention that LP's can also be bought and colour the audience's opinion of the game.

Second quote:
If I was a developer on a heavily story based game or something that is best experienced without prior knowledge to it (anecdote: in my case it was Antichamber and Telltale's The Walking Dead and GTA V) and I saw people rather watch someone play my game instead of buying it, I'd be more than a bit sad. If you then showed up and told me that to my face...nah, the mods won't allow it.

I bought the aforementioned two games (not GTA) after I've seen them LP'd because I thought the developers deserved it/I wanted to play them later. I also haven't yet played either of them, I may if I have time but right now it doesn't seem likely.

Now imagine if I didn't buy them because I thought "oh well, I've seen them anyway so I know what's going to happen" or maybe I didn't like the ending or something. That's a potential loss, for whomever distributed the game and the publisher and the developer. Now try to imagine how many people may also do the same. That's one of the reasons this is happening, potential sales losses.

 

[Krantos]

Snip

Double Snip

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.

I bolded the important parts above. See, your first post made a broad sweeping statement "you can't fair use the whole or most of the game without devaluing the original"

That's a very different stance than the one you defended above. In this post you explained there are times when lets plays can devalue a work. That's a statement I can actually agree with. My problem was with the stance that any game with any lengthy lets play would be intrinsically damaging to the value of a product.


The question, then becomes one of whether devaluing a product is or is not acceptable (morally, the Copyright laws in this country are a mess).

For example, you say that spoiler filled lets plays devalue the piece. I would agree with that. However, you also say that reviews do not devalue a game unless it has spoilers. I would disagree with that. When I'm looking at a game, the first thing I do is check reviews. If the game has a number of bad reviews, I don't typically get it. Those reviews have effectively lost sales for the game.

However, we accept negative reviews. We even get upset when companies go to lengths to suppress them. Why? If the only requisite something has to violate copyright is to devalue the game, then by rights negative reviews should not be allowed.

But, if, on the other hand, we accept negative reviews morally sound, then we are forced to acknowledge there are more standards that have to be met before something infringes the copyright enough to be morally objectionable. At which point the discussion becomes one of what those standards are and whether lets plays meets them.

Which I think is a much more interesting discussion.

 

[Foolery]

I don't have much pity for people who make their money off of the internet and then cry fowl when it keeps changing. Having some monetization is fine, but when you're getting your sole income from a private corporation that you're technically not employed with, and has potentially drastic changes in policy, that's a problem that you need to deal with, not Youtube. They're not obligated to do anything for you. It's foolish to be dependent on a third-party tool that exists as a single point of failure. You have to acknowledge the inherent risk in those situations and be able to reasonably prepare for certain eventualities.

 

[furai47]

People say the same thing for used games yet that does'nt give the game industry the right to take something that's not theirs.

It does when the people they are "taking" from are the ones blatantly disregarding the fact that they don't want their content to appear in walkthroughs/LPs.

 

[Eve Charm]

That's a very different stance than the one you defended above. In this post you explained there are times when lets plays can devalue a work. That's a statement I can actually agree with. My problem was with the stance that any game with any lengthy lets play would be intrinsically damaging to the value of a product.


The question, then becomes one of whether devaluing a product is or is not acceptable (morally, the Copyright laws in this country are a mess).

Pretty much ya, any story game CAN be claimed to be devalued by a full lengthy let's play in the same sense as long clips or everything from a movie or from a book. It's not a question tho, the only reason people could post a let's play is due to fair use, if fair use is broken then it's just abusing a copyright, And it should Only be up to the copyright holder then.

For example, you say that spoiler filled lets plays devalue the piece. I would agree with that. However, you also say that reviews do not devalue a game unless it has spoilers. I would disagree with that. When I'm looking at a game, the first thing I do is check reviews. If the game has a number of bad reviews, I don't typically get it. Those reviews have effectively lost sales for the game.

However, we accept negative reviews. We even get upset when companies go to lengths to suppress them. Why? If the only requisite something has to violate copyright is to devalue the game, then by rights negative reviews should not be allowed.

But, if, on the other hand, we accept negative reviews morally sound, then we are forced to acknowledge there are more standards that have to be met before something infringes the copyright enough to be morally objectionable. At which point the discussion becomes one of what those standards are and whether lets plays meets them.

Which I think is a much more interesting discussion.

Reviews are different because it isn't using the copyrighted product to direct devalue the copyrighted product. Someone talking about how garbage a game is, is their own work, not the copyrighted material of the game which is protected in itself by freedom of speech. Even someone showing Bad glitches or dumb crashes of a game or how bad the gameplay isn't really considered devaluing the work. Your showing it off out of context in a small chunk like a demo and aren't really taking away the experience one would have getting up to those moments the way a let's play would.

 

[Eve Charm]

No they don't.This is why the current copyright laws are so broken because anyone can claim something is their content on Youtube.Would you be saying the same thing if for every time you drove a car Ford or any other car manufacturer gets a cut of your earnings because you are using their car to get to work?

No because a car is a product and not a license and your not infringing anyone's copyrights by using a product as intended or personal use. You'd only start to break the grounds of copyright if you bought a bunch of a product modified it then started to sell it if you didn't have permission. Think like mod consoles.

 

[furai47]

Says who?Do game devs put disclaimers in their games that prohibits people from showing footage of their games?

No, but after this recent change a lot of them have openly stated their stance on the matter. Even before this change was enacted it was well known what each company thinks of this. Let me quote myself for a moment.

...See http://alloyseven.com/component/k2/item/115-monetize-gaming-videos and http://letsplaylist.wikia.com/wiki/%22Let%27s_Play%22-friendly_developers_Wiki#Master_List...

This is a simple issue. Youtube has a set of policies in place. These policies state that if you don't have permission from the developer or publisher to upload footage of their games then your videos may be removed. If you do upload video without the developer's or publisher's permission then taking your video down is completely justified because again, Youtube can be sued if they doesn't comply.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[C14N]

People say the same thing for used games yet that does'nt give the game industry the right to take something that's not theirs.

It does when the people they are "taking" from are the ones blatantly disregarding the fact that they don't want their content to appear in walkthroughs/LPs.

Says who?Do game devs put disclaimers in their games that prohibits people from showing footage of their games?No they don't,just like they don't say that people can't buy used games or sell them for that matter.Of course even if they did the First Sale laws would override them anyway.

Well I don't know about console games but a lot of these Let's Plays are from PC games. When you install a PC game there is always that huge End User License Agreement that you have to say you read and accepted to play and there could very well be something in there to the tune of "don't record this and share the footage". It's also true that for most PC games (especially downloads from services like Steam) you don't actually own the game at all, you just own a license that I'm pretty sure they could revoke at any given moment if they felt like it.

I don't understand it though. I would have assumed that all of these gameplay videos basically function as free advertising. If a video of your game gets 2 million views, that's 2 million people who are now more aware of your product. The multiplayer videos must do a lot to help the hype too. I understand devs not wanting their cutscenes in the videos because that's basically just a movie and loses nothing by being on Youtube but nobody is going to substitute actually playing a game by watching someone else do it. Ever go to a friends house and play a single player game together? Watching someone else at it just wants to make you play it more, even if it isn't that good. I just feel like companies should want these for their own sake. I don't mind if they're greedy and everything, it would be nice if they weren't but this is real life so they expect to maximise their profits, but it just seems like this a mutually beneficial relationship.

Also, EA recently said they want to be the most popular gaming company. This is a big opportunity for them on a silver platter. All they have to do is have some PR person put on a big smile and say "of course we want these Let's Play people sharing our games, we love that stuff" and I bet plenty of people will forget about Sim City. It won't even cost them anything, they just need to maintain the status quo for popularity points.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Really so it's the GAME's fault that it's not really a puzzle game or an open world sandbox but a game structured more like a book or movie with beginning, middle, climax, and ending...

It's the truth of the matter. Chide it if you wish.
That said, yes, puzzle centric games are unfortunately the most at risk.

Just because it's a weakness of the game that if it's spoiled it's value goes down, doesn't me it shouldn't still be protected by it's copyright.

The problem with this reasoning is that it lets the exception define the norm.

For every puzzle game you can cite, I can point to upwards of a dozen other games that aren't ruined by Lets Play exposure.
Sadly, due to the nature of Law, there is no eloquent legal solution that satisfies everyone.

Either the corporate culture, or the gamer culture must cede something in this exchange.

The practical solution is for the market to just not spoil puzzle games, either by creating or watching such LPs, but I doubt that would happen.

 

[furai47]

Because people like Angry Joe,Total Biscuit,and Jim Sterling have been hit with copyright claims despite having permission to use game footage.It's bullshit and Youtube needs to fix their completely broken copy right system because at this point videos are being taken down for the most minor of things.

Delicious red herring. Alright, I'll bite.

In cases where the user has permission from the copyright holder to use the content and a copyright strike is issued Youtube can lift said strikes and usually will. This is standard procedure and something anyone attempting to upload copyrighted material should know.

 

[furai47]

How is what I said a red herring?

Because I was specifically adressing walkthroughs and LPs that don't have permission from the copyright holder.

Angy Joe had 60 videos taken down for copy right claims and GhostRobo had over 110+ videos taken down.Most of the claims were made by bogus companies or companies that aren't related to games at all.And Youtube has done jack shit about any of it.

I'd imagine a large percentage of those "bogus" companies were legal firms that developers and publishers hired to to the grunt work for them. Legal firms that could end up suing both the uploader and Youtube for copyright infringement.

Notwithstanding, here's the million dollar question:

Did Angry Joe have a permission for each and every piece of copyrighted material in those 60 videos? Did GhostRobo do the same for those 110+ videos?

 

[furai47]

Yes they did,Joe even made several videos stating that his videos were alright with the publishers/developers.Since both belong to networks they are also protected from having their content flagged by copyright claims.

Well then the only thing I can see that's keeping them from getting their videos back is that Youtube is afraid of being sued. That or they don't care, either way the outcome is the same.
It's not like they don't have alternative ways of uploading content though, right?

Here's my question:what gives Youtube the right to allow other people to use Angry Joe's,Ghost Robo's and a bunch of other popular youtuber's footage while pocketing all of the money?

You're going to have to give me examples of that. And please be specific. I'm going to bed which should give you plenty of time.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

The weird thing is, I probably heard him before I heard people complaining, but I cannot for the life of me remember. I've ALWAYS found Bieber's greatest sin to be how utterly forgettable he is to me. I mean, I get that he's promarily popular as a heartthrob and probably also hated as a heartthrob, but the only song I even partially remember is that Mistletoe one, because I heard it and started laughing. When my friends looked at me weird....

Well, I started singing Nickelback's "Photograph" over it.

....And I'm a touch ashamed how much of that song I can remember. But that kind of helps my point. I dislike Nickelback and I remember their lyrics because of the negative association. And I love Queen and remember their lyrics because of positive association. Sometimes a song is funny, and I remember it less because of the musical or lyrical quality, and more because something about it amuses me. Hell, if Aerosmith didn't have so much juvenile wordplay in their songs I might not have remembered them in my formative years. And Bieber? He's too bland.

I sort of feel that must be the case with PewDiePie, to bring this back home. I might actually go watch one of his videos to remind me. I remember not being a fan, but the reason is a blank that usually means "Bieber." or similar.

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.

I appreciate him when he gets mad, and I almost feel bad because it's the only time I routinely like his videos. The rest of the time he comes off as fake and plasticky. I mean, I do appreciate when he shows what's wrong with a game, but most of the time, he comes off as rather insincere.

And again, one of the things I like most about him is what's getting him in trouble right now, because people are flagging him or he's being flagged automatically for using gameplay clips. And while people might complain about LPers, Joe's reviews definitely should be far game.

And if I might turn more germane for a moment, I think this scattershot approach should be punishable. I doubt it will be, but it should be. Abuse of the system should carry with it some strike setup like the penalties for infringement in the first place, where people who just make claims over and over with no basis lose their privileges.

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

Have a Lucky Day

 

[Therumancer]

Well, to be honest Jim you seem to be a pretty big fish as far as this arena goes. A lot of people working on a smaller scale do have to worry about their available platforms drying up. Sure, it can be argued that if Youtube chases people off by following the rules and laws set down, the independent coverage will go somewhere else, but that will only last until the same problems follow them there. Eventually you'll probably wind up with a situation where for most micro reviewers and game commentators and such it will be nearly impossible to be on a major platform.

Truthfully I suspect a big part of the problem (as I mentioned in some other posts) is simply that game companies have come to realize exactly how much power the independent circuit has when viewed cumulatively. I look at things like the whole "Aliens: Colonial Marines" thing where early release press footage was shown in order to prove Gearbox a bunch of liars (something to which Jimquisition contributed heavily) as being the kind of move that probably scared the game companies out of relative complacency. That and of course companies like EA getting named worst company in America multiple times running, the reputation of EA not being helped by the generally bad publicity thrown around by the independent circuit, many of which were themselves highly dependent on material held by the very publishers they were badmouthing to help run the shows that were the source of their power and platform to begin with.

This is a bad thing, but honestly I don't see a lot that can be done about it in a practical sense, and for every big fish that isn't afraid or intimidated, I think we're going to see a dozen or more pretty much chewed up and spit out by this kind of thing if it manages to stick this time.

 

[Therumancer]

How is what I said a red herring?

Because I was specifically adressing walkthroughs and LPs that don't have permission from the copyright holder.

Angy Joe had 60 videos taken down for copy right claims and GhostRobo had over 110+ videos taken down.Most of the claims were made by bogus companies or companies that aren't related to games at all.And Youtube has done jack shit about any of it.

I'd imagine a large percentage of those "bogus" companies were legal firms that developers and publishers hired to to the grunt work for them. Legal firms that could end up suing both the uploader and Youtube for copyright infringement.

Notwithstanding, here's the million dollar question:

Did Angry Joe have a permission for each and every piece of copyrighted material in those 60 videos? Did GhostRobo do the same for those 110+ videos?

Well, as I understand things a lot of what they did was covered under "fair use" and by the fact that a lot of the material used was presented to be used publically by the companies to begin with. The big problem of course is that "fair use" is under fire. Not to mention that big platforms like Youtube are dependent on advertising from major corporations, and they can't say choose to selectively snub video game publishers for being jerks, without raising concerns from other companies about how Youtube might treat them. As a result it has to side with it's business interests and what's going to keep the money rolling in, as opposed to it's users and content producers. Not to mention that things could get complicated if Youtube itself was ever found complicit in copyright violations by refusing to take action.

That said I think part of the reason why things have gone so crazy is that Youtube is acting largely off of the accusations being made, rather than requiring every specific claim to be vetted or aimed at particular pieces of content, which should be the case before a video is taken down or disabled. Youtube is pretty much playing too nice with the corporate interests. Sure, it can be argued that in say 110 videos someone like this might have used copyrighted footage they weren't supposed to put up. However given the release of promotional footage and such, the guys making the accusation should be forced to specify where and when each specific violation occurred, with the person putting up the video being able to make a defense before any administrative action is taken. It seems likely that what your seeing is a bunch of proxy companies taking a shotgun approach and saying "ban these videos for showing scenes of the video games made by our client" when they may or may not have the right to do that if the material was knowingly released into the public domain by the companies to begin with.

It's a big mess, and as sad as I am to say it, I kind of expect the corporations to win this one. I don't want them to, but they do seem to be holding all the cards, and simply put the very size of the platforms being targeted is what makes them vulnerable.

 

[Eve Charm]

No they don't.This is why the current copyright laws are so broken because anyone can claim something is their content on Youtube.Would you be saying the same thing if for every time you drove a car Ford or any other car manufacturer gets a cut of your earnings because you are using their car to get to work?

No because a car is a product and not a license and your not infringing anyone's copyrights by using a product as intended or personal use. You'd only start to break the grounds of copyright if you bought a bunch of a product modified it then started to sell it if you didn't have permission. Think like mod consoles.

This argument again?Last time I checked you need a driver's license in order to purchase a car,with your logic that means the car manufacturer gets a cut of any money you earn while using their car.

Did you really just compare a Driver's license to a Product license??? And NO you don't need a driver's license to purchase a car anyway, you need one to register it in some places.

Back on topics youtube basically as to act off of accusations, every hour a good 70 + hours of footage is being uploaded to youtube, No human or group of humans could ever keep up, That's why it's all machine content ID matching.

The other monkey wrench in the system right now and the major reason this really is going down is Music. The Developers only license the music for a set amount of time, After that right and everything go back to who made or owns the music. So simple terms if you played guitar hero or rock band on a stream, and all those licenses for the music expired, they own the music even if you own the game that plays the music.