Major Changes In Youtube Involving Let's Players

[The Great Fungus]

SNIP

SNIP

So I finally made an account just to reply to you two.

One question: Why do you guys think EULAS are called EULAS (End-user license agreements)?
I just read the last page of my GTA 4 manual. And there it clearly states that by purchasing the product you buy a license.


On topic: While I don't want innocent people to lose their livelihoods, I don't think anything of value would be lost if LPs disappeared.

 

[Rellik San]

So I finally made an account just to reply to you two.

One question: Why do you guys think EULAS are called EULAS (End-user license agreements)?
I just read the last page of my GTA 4 manual. And there it clearly states that by purchasing the product you buy a license.

By that logic, does purchasing Photoshop then allow Adobe to place watermarks, advertising and reap all the revenue from my art work created with it?

After all Photoshop is also purchased as a license not a product.

 

[miketehmage]

SNIP

Well to be honest I kind of agree with the music thing. It kind of fits with what I was saying. I mean, look at how many shitty boybands are out there who have absolutely zero talent, they sing songs that were written for them, and then have everything autotuned to make them sound good;

and they make a bazillion dollars just because they got lucky and were picked to be special(Pewdiepie)

Of course you have real talented musicians who write their own stuff and put in the time to practice (because playing an instrument takes skill, people can't just pick them up and play). And those are my "Competitive gamers".

Look I'm not trying to get all LP's removed from the internet man, I'm just saying it's really shitty that all a person has to do is play a game, record it, and shout a little bit and BOOM tonnes of money.

You really don't think that it's ridiculous?

Then I guess we just have differing opinions.


EDIT: I suppose I missed the main point of your reply the first time round, which is that there is a solution to this that makes everyone happy, I get it.

Basically all I was saying was that if some LPers lose out on some money, I probably wouldn't care much.

 

[The Great Fungus]

So I finally made an account just to reply to you two.

One question: Why do you guys think EULAS are called EULAS (End-user license agreements)?
I just read the last page of my GTA 4 manual. And there it clearly states that by purchasing the product you buy a license.

By that logic, does purchasing Photoshop then allow Adobe to place watermarks, advertising and reap all the revenue from my art work created with it?

After all Photoshop is also a license not a product.

That would depend on the agreement. One thing is certain though. You're not allowed to use their code to make your own software. That's how it's been with software for as long as I can remember. I think Blizzard used to reserve their right to take your disc away if you didn't comply with their EULA. But that I might be wrong on that one.

 

[Rellik San]

So I finally made an account just to reply to you two.

One question: Why do you guys think EULAS are called EULAS (End-user license agreements)?
I just read the last page of my GTA 4 manual. And there it clearly states that by purchasing the product you buy a license.

By that logic, does purchasing Photoshop then allow Adobe to place watermarks, advertising and reap all the revenue from my art work created with it?

After all Photoshop is also a license not a product.

That would depend on the agreement. One thing is certain though. You're not allowed to use their code to make your own software. That's how it's been with software for as long as I can remember. I think Blizzard used to reserve their right to take your disc away if you didn't comply with their EULA. But that I might be wrong on that one.

I guess the argument comes in the guise of transforming the work and with that said, couldn't you realistically argue that the mere act of playing a game transforms it, because it can't function without that human interaction?

 

[miketehmage]

Why should anyone make money from playing games? It's ridiculous.

Damn straight. While we're at it, why don't we cut off the salaries of all those reviewers and critics, too? I mean, jeez, anybody can spew out some words about a game they've played, why should people make money off of it?

I'd like to address this first if I may. If you read the part you quoted from me carefully, you'll notice that I said:

"Why should anyone make money from PLAYING games"

I have absolutely no problem with reviewers or critics.

a video per day with consistently funny or informative commentary

I would say that is debatable.

 

[The Great Fungus]

SNIP

SNIP

So I finally made an account just to reply to you two.

One question: Why do you guys think EULAS are called EULAS (End-user license agreements)?
I just read the last page of my GTA 4 manual. And there it clearly states that by purchasing the product you buy a license.


On topic: While I don't want innocent people to lose their livelihoods, I don't think anything of value would be lost if LPs disappeared.

I feel flattered that you made a account just to reply to my posts .EULAs are meaningless bits of script that are never held up in court so I don't know why people always bring them up when discussing the details of ownnership regarding games.

Because it's the only thing we have that we can go by. The ones I've read say that you're not allowed to "commercially exploit the software". Spore could only be installed five times iirc. EA used online passes so that you couldn't use a portion of your game if you didn't have a valid one. They have the right do deny you access to your game. What does that tell you about ownership? Microsoft's plan to restrict used games wasn't overthrown because of legal issues but to avoid a PR disaster.

 

[miketehmage]

Why should anyone make money from playing games? It's ridiculous.

Damn straight. While we're at it, why don't we cut off the salaries of all those reviewers and critics, too? I mean, jeez, anybody can spew out some words about a game they've played, why should people make money off of it?

I'd like to address this first if I may. If you read the part you quoted from me carefully, you'll notice that I said:

"Why should anyone make money from PLAYING games"

I have absolutely no problem with reviewers or critics.

a video per day with consistently funny or informative commentary

I would say that is debatable.

Except game reviewers and critics play games that they are reviewing or criticizing.

Haha of course they do, that wasn't my point xD

My point is LPer's are merely playing the game and sometimes shouting in suprise.

Reviewers play the game and then you know, think about the game they have just played, talk about it's qualities, how it affects the industry, that kind of thing. Reviewers don't simply play. LPers do.

 

[The Great Fungus]

So I finally made an account just to reply to you two.

One question: Why do you guys think EULAS are called EULAS (End-user license agreements)?
I just read the last page of my GTA 4 manual. And there it clearly states that by purchasing the product you buy a license.

By that logic, does purchasing Photoshop then allow Adobe to place watermarks, advertising and reap all the revenue from my art work created with it?

After all Photoshop is also a license not a product.

That would depend on the agreement. One thing is certain though. You're not allowed to use their code to make your own software. That's how it's been with software for as long as I can remember. I think Blizzard used to reserve their right to take your disc away if you didn't comply with their EULA. But that I might be wrong on that one.

I guess the argument comes in the guise of transforming the work and with that said, couldn't you realistically argue that the mere act of playing a game transforms it, because it can't function without that human interaction?

I wouldn't say so because you can only act within the confines of the programming. That's why cheating's regarded as breaking the EULA.

So I finally made an account just to reply to you two.

One question: Why do you guys think EULAS are called EULAS (End-user license agreements)?
I just read the last page of my GTA 4 manual. And there it clearly states that by purchasing the product you buy a license.

By that logic, does purchasing Photoshop then allow Adobe to place watermarks, advertising and reap all the revenue from my art work created with it?

After all Photoshop is also a license not a product.

That would depend on the agreement. One thing is certain though. You're not allowed to use their code to make your own software. That's how it's been with software for as long as I can remember. I think Blizzard used to reserve their right to take your disc away if you didn't comply with their EULA. But that I might be wrong on that one.

That would be theft...EULAs are just there to scare customers into thinking they have no legal power.

Couldn't LPs be regarded as theft of intellectual property?

 

[McFazzer]

My point is LPer's are merely playing the game and sometimes shouting in suprise.

Reviewers play the game and then you know, think about the game they have just played, talk about it's qualities, how it affects the industry, that kind of thing. Reviewers don't simply play. LPers do.

This is the thing I'm a bit concerned with. The OP seems to imply to me that any youtube video using captured gameplay (LPs, Reviews etc.) will be unable to be monetized. Sure I like LPers and all, but it's the implication that reviewers will not be able to make money off this that has me worried.

 

[The Great Fungus]

No,because simply showing footage of a game would'nt constitute as theft otherwise a whole lot of people would in trouble.

But playing a piece of music or showing a copyrighted picture on TV without permission can already get you in trouble. I've never heard of someone being sued for doing so on YouTube, they just get their accounts blocked. Doing the same for games doesn't seem far-fetched to me.

That tells me that there are control freaks in the game industry,luckily there are consumer laws that prevent them from trying to outright control the things people buy.

That's why they make it clear that you're only buying a license. The disc is yours. Nobody can take it away from you. But what's on it, the bits and bytes, belong to the publisher. And they make the rules.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

That tells me that there are control freaks in the game industry,luckily there are consumer laws that prevent them from trying to outright control the things people buy.

That's why they make it clear that you're only buying a license. The disc is yours. Nobody can take it away from you. But what's on it, the bits and bytes, belong to the publisher. And they make the rules.

The thing about the whole "product or license" debate is that it's not clear even on a political level (the true rulemakers, so to speak). Not only do individual people have different yet equally strong stances on this, but so do governments. As an example, the U.S. judicial systems tend to side with the idea that all software is a service and the customer must abide by the terms of the license, whereas the EU tends to view software that's sold for infinite use at a flat one-time fee as a product and must strictly adhere to consumer rights laws.

In other words, this is not a debate that can be won from either side on internet forums, but instead must be decided on a political level. Until then, it's highly unlikely that this age-old debate will ever go anywhere but in circles.

 

[Zeldias]

I just think it's crazy when anyone wants to defend major corporations for any reason. Really says something about our culture when you've got people saying "Think of the outrageously rich!"

It's pretty shit. There were scares about this way back in the FGC regarding tournament viewership. Personally, I don't see why anyone would give a fuck about what LPers do. The text ones tend to be really entertaining and often can make something much more interesting out of otherwise mediocre games (Front Mission 3, Avalon Code). The video ones I generally like less unless there's some nostalgia for a game I haven't beaten down inside and out like Tactics Ogre: Person of Lordly Caliber. But ultimately, the point of a game is to be played, so trying to put down Let's Players for showing people themselves playing the game is idiotic. I'm not actually playing the game, and in certain cases (speed runs and other challenge runs, tournament play), I'm watching to see a level of expertise that I haven't gotten to.

It's like a brick maker being mad that someone is using that brick to prop up an uneven table because the usage was unintended. Which is exactly what corporations don't like unless it's unexpected windfalls or something. I say let them make the LPs, let them monetize, fuck it. It costs them no money (or at least the amount of sales a good LPer can get a game probably outweigh the losses by people who go "Oh, I guess I wouldn't like this,"), allowing it garners good will which means more positive attention and future likely sales...Seems better all around to me, although I'm not any kind of businessman. I know for damn sure there are fighting games I've bought because I was excited by the high level play tournie players showed me. Don't see why it wouldn't be the same way with good LPers.

 

[The Great Fungus]

That tells me that there are control freaks in the game industry,luckily there are consumer laws that prevent them from trying to outright control the things people buy.

That's why they make it clear that you're only buying a license. The disc is yours. Nobody can take it away from you. But what's on it, the bits and bytes, belong to the publisher. And they make the rules.

The thing about the whole "product or license" debate is that it's not clear even on a political level (the true rulemakers, so to speak). Not only do individual people have different yet equally strong stances on this, but so do governments. As an example, the U.S. judicial systems tend to side with the idea that all software is a service and the customer must abide by the terms of the license, whereas the EU tends to view software that's sold for infinite use at a flat one-time fee as a product and must strictly adhere to consumer rights laws.

In other words, this is not a debate that can be won from either side on internet forums, but instead must be decided on a political level. Until then, it's highly unlikely that this age-old debate will ever go anywhere but in circles.

I agree completely. My point was merely that games have always been sold as licenses and we've never had complete control over them. I know the EU has allowed digital copies to be resold despite what EULAS used to say. However, I'm not aware of any other rulings regarding the ownership of games.

 

[yundex]

I can't say i'd miss the constant barrage of assholes rushing to blind LP *insert new game here*, on normal difficulty. I can't wait until let's plays are no longer allowed to monetize.

 

[BlackWidower]

I never understood why a company would refuse to allow derivative works of their products. However, there is one reason. But I'll get to it.

You see, if one creates a Let's Play of their game, it's an act of love, they love the game so much they're willing to put in the work and create something out of it. And in return, the publisher gets a bit more free publicity. So why crack down on it?

One reason I can see: If you know you're game is so shit that the only Let's Plays will be those taking the piss. You don't want people to know how shit your game is before they buy it!

So that's just insane!

But regarding Activision, I'm pretty sure their licencing agreement is referring to derivative works of the source code, not the game play. I read the document and it doesn't seem to be about Let's Plays at all, but the engine code.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

Unfortunately, it's copyright law. It's a legally binding contract that they agree to when buying a game. I will admit it's a problem for a lot of people who make a living off of it (and I'm often amazed they make a living off of doing this), but for indie reviewers to not make money off of their reviews seems like game companies fiddling with the data. I think the contracts/laws need to be changed.

Think about it. Many game review companies (such as IGN, Kotaku, and the like) have gotten into trouble for questionable deals in exchange for being able to review a new game, and a lot of them (after that whole Gerstmann/Kane and Lynch scandal) are afraid to be brutally honest about a game, even when it deserves it.

"You don't like this game? Well guess what? We won't give you any of our games to review anymore!"

Now, these people who do reviews on YouTube are people who bought the game with their own money (usually). Their opinions are brutal, honest, and untainted by the fear of being able to keep their job. They obviously care about games as a whole and put time and effort into their videos (...usually). They don't have marketing departments and advertising deals with major companies.

Game companies see this and, of course, they don't like it. They don't have any control over these reviewers. They didn't give them a review copy of the game, they can't call their supervisor, they can't raise a fuss and get them fired, and they can't just ban them from having any more copies of the games. So they do the next best thing: they bring in the law. They make contracts so long and full of legalese, you don't know what you're agreeing to without hiring an attorney to translate.

I'm not trying to be paranoid, but I'm seeing some rather alarming trends here that I'm not too fond of.

 

[rbstewart7263]

so what lets players are protected from this? gamegrumps? who all is managed per se?

 

[Roxas1359]

so what lets players are protected from this? gamegrumps? who all is managed per se?

Who is and isn't protected depends on the Network deciding who will be considered Affiliate or Managed. There is no standard and it will vary depending on size of the network along with how many people are in it. For example, RPM and Fullscreen are relatively small and have a large amount of members, so it's safe to assume that most of the channels partnered with them will be considered affiliate. On the other hand, the larger networks like Machinima, TGS, and Polaris have strict and difficult application processes and have many channels partnered with them that have anywhere from 25k subscribers to PewDiePie's level of subscribers (PewDiePie being the most subscribed to channel on YouTube currently with Smosh in second). It's safe to assume that the really big channels will be made Managed, but again it'll vary depending on how the networks handle it. Mainly because if your network were to make you a Managed channel that would mean that if you got a Copyright strike so would your Network. 3 strikes and your channel gets banned, and if you are a Managed channel then that means your network goes down as well, screwing over many more.

This is why things are bad, because the large networks and small ones wouldn't want to risk having one of their partners deciding to upload copyright striking footage and thus putting them in danger. So then they make their channels Affiliates, which basically is what the current YouTuber has to go through. Then you've got this scenario where you have your videos monetized and 40% automatically goes to Google (this is a standard always), with anywhere from 10-40% going to the network (depends on the contract you signed), and you'd get the remainder of the proceeds. So basically you're paying for the protections that networks used to give you, only they no longer give you those protections since you are just as susceptible to copyright again and you have the chance of your videos not even being approved for monetization so then you lose even more proceeds.

A common thing I've seen in this thread is how "people shouldn't be paid for playing games" despite the fact that you have to jump through hoops to get into a network most of the time, you take a large cut, you still pay taxes on it, and you are locked in a legally binding contract which is the equivalent of a sponsorship. And opting out of those contracts can be a pain a lot of the time, most often the case is you have the chance to opt out of the contract a certain number of days, sometimes months, before your contract is renewed. Not to mention that some of the contracts lock you out of being able to make content for other places, Machinima being especially guilty with this.

 

[Rellik San]

I wouldn't say so because you can only act within the confines of the programming. That's why cheating's regarded as breaking the EULA.

That said then, also wouldn't modding the content, community patches and other activities in a similar vain be regarded as breaking the EULA?
Playing a board game, you can only act within the confines of the rules? But yet no one has issue with people recording "lets plays" of them... it's just the same, visualising, demonstrating and providing commentary of someone else's intellectual property? Or better yet, should GW get a cut of the profits from a "Let's Paint" video because the model in question is their IP?

Couldn't LPs be regarded as theft of intellectual property?

Well that depends, does the IP then stretch to include the commentary if so, surely it's a collaborative work? As one can not exist without the other, the LP needs the game and the game is enhanced through the commentary?

As a general rule of thumb, I deign LP's that include cut scenes to be potential theft of IP, but if it's just purely gameplay with commentary, all the game has provided is a rule set for play, a board and it's playing pieces, surely the actual enjoyment of that comes from the act of playing and commentary just as no matter how impressive a boardgame is, enjoyment is derived from playing it, not marvelling at the pieces?

And with EULA's ruled by many parts of Europe and other nations to not be legally binding contracts or licenses, surely then there is a clear cause for debate on this matter?