Blech. I honestly much prefer the good old fashioned way of LPing, let your voice and the game do the work, putting a box with your face in it is just distracting.Thr33X said:
Major Changes In Youtube Involving Let's Players
- Thread starter Emaruse
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I just downloaded Half Life: Day One. It's a pre-release demo of Half Life that was released in 1998. In addition to copying it, Sierra's legal information also says you're not allowed to broadcast or do a whole lot of other things with it. How's that not a license? Just as V da Mighty Taco said, to what extend you own your game depends on your local laws. I'm not defending the current system. All I'm saying is that the situation seems to be in favour of the publishers; at least in the USA.the hidden eagle said:
No, i think selling physical copies was and always has been legal unless you ripped the code from the cartridges or discs. And I agree that watching a movie and a game isn't the same thing. But regardless of your sentiments, publishers have the right to shut you down if the courts declare that you can't broadcast gameplay sessions.Specter Von Baren said:
Which, to my knowledge, hasn't been done yet. There hasn't been a court ruling that says you can't broadcast yourself playing a game and talking about it while doing so.The Great Fungus said:
While I don' think that LP videos should be monetized, I do dislike the idea of this crackdown. One of the reasons I watch LPs (aside from being entertained) is to see whether a game is possibly worth buying since rental stores have pretty much gone extinct in my area.
I really don't see how this could be considered beneficial in anyway other than serving corporate greed. I'm gonna be pissed if Achievement Hunter goes under.
Honestly don't see why, with any amount of common sense used, IP owners simply wouldn't take a cut of the ad revenue. They'll literally make money with free advertisement of their games to millions of people. Popular LPers literally knock websites offline from the traffic they cause as viewers go check out and buy new games.
All in the name of "protecting" IP... You have to be a completely inane, greedy ignoramus to see LP as an IP threat and look like a cave troll rather than find ways to tap into such a huge opportunity to advance marketing strategies, make money off LP and likely increase sales.
All in the name of "protecting" IP... You have to be a completely inane, greedy ignoramus to see LP as an IP threat and look like a cave troll rather than find ways to tap into such a huge opportunity to advance marketing strategies, make money off LP and likely increase sales.
I've seen lots of posting here or there about how this will ruin people's lives and livelyhood. Ok. Listen. Do you think it was wise of them to solely base their income on the mercy and whim of a video hosting site? I don't.
Youtube is a private corporation that operates under its own terms and policies. That is the reality. They don't owe anybody, anything
They chose to share ad revenue with content creators, and they can choose to revoke or modify how that is done. Their site, their rules.
Youtube is a private corporation that operates under its own terms and policies. That is the reality. They don't owe anybody, anything
They chose to share ad revenue with content creators, and they can choose to revoke or modify how that is done. Their site, their rules.
The thing is, it isn't their hobby! Being a channel like TB or AngryJoe means you have to commit 100% to making that content. It is only fair they get paid for producing entertainment.Kinitawowi said:
This isn't about a random dude making shitty ass videos for 1 hour a day after school in his mom's basement, no. This is about people who have passion for this and put in tons of time (and money for equipment!) to make videos that people want to watch. If they don't get paid, they won't be able to produce quality content and therefore we are left with the videos from the aforementioned dude.
Someone, somewhere, is being incredibly petty. It is worth noting that Google is, ultimately, protecting its own interests here. Chances are most publishers wouldn't be that bothered about LP videos if they hadn't already invested millions in advertising, all of which can mean nothing in the face of a good YouTube content producer yaying or naying their game.
It is the advertising agencies that work with and for those publishers, and google is still an advertising giant first and foremost, that stand to profit from this situation.
It is the advertising agencies that work with and for those publishers, and google is still an advertising giant first and foremost, that stand to profit from this situation.
I think you're right. Maybe this whole thing will end up being a turning point for EULAs as we know them.Specter Von Baren said:
Well, as others have pointed out, IPs are a whole 'nother beast. Video games, as I see it, are a much more sensory experience than board games (if that makes sense). So the comparison doesn't really sit well with me. But I don't know enough about this to form an informed opinion anyway.Rellik San said:
And yes, I agree that it's high time to decide how valid EULAs really are.
The pubs are just trying to lock down every avenue of seeing game quality for what they truly is. If they really cared about protecting IP they would've come out against lets plays from the start. Good experience, crappy experience, they want to make sure you'll never know till you drop 60 bucks.
An excerpt from the US copyright law's doctrine of "fair use":Gethsemani said:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Now, Let's Plays do technically violate this act however. Also from the same page:
The originally quoted poster is correct. Using clips from a game for reviews and the like are perfectly fine, even if you're making money off of it, but you can't just post the entirety of the game online for others to see and make money from.
Why not make two videos?
One with the gameplay that is not advertised.
And one with the commentary but no gameplay.
Put a link to each other in the video description and let both videos run alongside each other. BAM you have your advertised LP without earning any money with copyrighted material.. only your own material.
Companies arent the only ones who can use loopholes.
One with the gameplay that is not advertised.
And one with the commentary but no gameplay.
Put a link to each other in the video description and let both videos run alongside each other. BAM you have your advertised LP without earning any money with copyrighted material.. only your own material.
Companies arent the only ones who can use loopholes.
the hidden eagle said:
Work and making YouTube videos of any sort are two different thinks no matter the time put into them because when it comes to let's plays it's still playing a game, not working. Get a real job and then go back to making the videos and see which is work. I spent hours making videos for fun and no money and lived it and my only regret is deleting my channel. Not once was it work no matter what I did.
I personally enjoy the fact people make money off of others watching them play video games while others been working 80 hour weeks and getting one quarter of what the top Lets plays get if even that. It's truly the biggest joke in today's media age in my opinion. For every one or two good videos, there is 100 miles of crap, and it ruined what was once and enjoyable leisure time activity to me.
Funny you should mentioned AngryJoe and PP, as those two together with TotalBiscuit are some YouTube personalities that I certainly could do without.
However, this is an issue. It really comes down to what kind of content being created in my opinion. If it's just a pure playthrough with no commentary, clipping, editing or effort on the uploader part, then this person should not get a cent. He'll get subscribers, comments, likes and attention that can help popularity of other content on his channel, but he shouldn't receive money for simply uploading a video series of him playing a game. In this situation, I fully support the company's right to complete monetization.
But well edited videos produced with effort that actually adds something to the content that might even help to advertise the game shouldn't be touched. These people deserve the income they get from their work.
However, this is an issue. It really comes down to what kind of content being created in my opinion. If it's just a pure playthrough with no commentary, clipping, editing or effort on the uploader part, then this person should not get a cent. He'll get subscribers, comments, likes and attention that can help popularity of other content on his channel, but he shouldn't receive money for simply uploading a video series of him playing a game. In this situation, I fully support the company's right to complete monetization.
But well edited videos produced with effort that actually adds something to the content that might even help to advertise the game shouldn't be touched. These people deserve the income they get from their work.
I'm going to break this down as easy for people to understand as possible because this is a complex issue.
Copyright infringement for video game "Let's Players" is basically upload video game footage without permission from the publisher/developers. The good news is a lot of publisher/developers do give permission. It BEST INTEREST of the Let's Players to find out which publisher/developers give permissions. There are ton of websites devoted to this information.
There are exceptions! You may have see the words "Fair Use". Well when it comes to these video there are two particular ways that Fair Use works. First is review/critique which allows people to use gameplay footage without permission. Commentary alone with the game may not be enough to fall under this exception. There is a blurry line that goes between commentary with a game and commentary for review/critique and if that line is crossed, it is no longer protected under the exception.
The second exception is parody. IT MUST be a parody of the video game or part of the video game. A let's player can not use the video game footage to make a parody of something else. Parody is the only form of satire that is protected under this exception.
There are other exceptions under Fair Use, but these two are the only ones that would mainly pertain to Let's Plays.
Remember, just because someone is not making money off a Let's Play does not mean it is protected by Fair Use.
Now back to Youtube's problems. They get close to a hundred and twenty hours footage uploads every minute of every day. There is no way to easily protect everyone's interest. I don't believe Google's system is not the best. There are basically two different types of videos. Normal videos and monetized videos. Mose game publisher/developers do not care about Let's plays on normal videos(But SOME do check those lists). It is the monetized video where there are ads being shown and the people making money off their created videos. In order to facilitate this better Google has split the jobs of policing the the videos to either themselves or a separate company. So your either a Google partner or a network partner. Google partners have the least amount of protection. Network partners are part of a company that protects them and are suppose to find copyright infringements themselves.
Well there were a lot of complaints about infringements in larger networks. So in order for Google to protected itself, it had the large networks split into two types of groups, managed partners and affiliated partners. Pretty much the affiliated partners now have about the same protection as a Google partner, which is why we are seeing an rise in copyright infringement notices. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to go into further detail on why this impacts Let's Players. I'll try to get around to it tomorrow when I have some more free time.
Copyright infringement for video game "Let's Players" is basically upload video game footage without permission from the publisher/developers. The good news is a lot of publisher/developers do give permission. It BEST INTEREST of the Let's Players to find out which publisher/developers give permissions. There are ton of websites devoted to this information.
There are exceptions! You may have see the words "Fair Use". Well when it comes to these video there are two particular ways that Fair Use works. First is review/critique which allows people to use gameplay footage without permission. Commentary alone with the game may not be enough to fall under this exception. There is a blurry line that goes between commentary with a game and commentary for review/critique and if that line is crossed, it is no longer protected under the exception.
The second exception is parody. IT MUST be a parody of the video game or part of the video game. A let's player can not use the video game footage to make a parody of something else. Parody is the only form of satire that is protected under this exception.
There are other exceptions under Fair Use, but these two are the only ones that would mainly pertain to Let's Plays.
Remember, just because someone is not making money off a Let's Play does not mean it is protected by Fair Use.
Now back to Youtube's problems. They get close to a hundred and twenty hours footage uploads every minute of every day. There is no way to easily protect everyone's interest. I don't believe Google's system is not the best. There are basically two different types of videos. Normal videos and monetized videos. Mose game publisher/developers do not care about Let's plays on normal videos(But SOME do check those lists). It is the monetized video where there are ads being shown and the people making money off their created videos. In order to facilitate this better Google has split the jobs of policing the the videos to either themselves or a separate company. So your either a Google partner or a network partner. Google partners have the least amount of protection. Network partners are part of a company that protects them and are suppose to find copyright infringements themselves.
Well there were a lot of complaints about infringements in larger networks. So in order for Google to protected itself, it had the large networks split into two types of groups, managed partners and affiliated partners. Pretty much the affiliated partners now have about the same protection as a Google partner, which is why we are seeing an rise in copyright infringement notices. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to go into further detail on why this impacts Let's Players. I'll try to get around to it tomorrow when I have some more free time.
I think an interesting question to ask at this point would be whether or not it's really meant to protect copyright, or if there is some ulterior motive for this sudden turnabout. For instance, if these Let's Plays are of actual in-game material, in essence, it's allowing a customer to 'window shop' in a way by seeing how the game plays.
The point that I'm trying to make there is that more and more triple-A games have been failing recently (according to publishers in determining production costs over sales revenue), with COD:Ghosts, Assassin's Creed IV, and others just not making up for their incredible production costs. I have to pose the question whether or not the fact that players can see into these games to make their initial buying decision, and seeing a game they like or dislike, will make decisions based not on marketing or official media, but on independent media such as Let's Plays. One must wonder if they (the publishers and developers) are worried that a look into their product beforehand may sway enough people to not buy their game, which would lose them money. However, it should be noted that by attacking Let's Plays, they either must have data, or only assumption, that the amount of revenue lost by unofficial media is equal or greater to that of the gape between their successful game and a financial failure.
Let's Plays also tend to have a good sway, with such prominent Let's Plays as PewDiePie, there are a lot of people who may have no intention of buying the game, yet still can experience the story and game play via Let's Plays. In this light, there is a point where some significant money is lost for publishers. When an individual may not have the proper console to play a specific game, a Let's Play video may instead allow someone to not buy the game, yet experience the story and mechanics, thereby allowing someone to enjoy the game without cost. The difference between Let's Plays and simply sharing a game is that a Let's Play will reach sometimes reach millions of people, while as an individual you'd be hard pressed to match that audience. In that respect, game makers/producers certainly have some real concern over the revenue that may be lost by Let's Play videos, yet I get the sense that most large Let's Play producers by now have some affiliation with a publisher or producer, and those that don't will end up having those videos removed, which, at least from my limited perspective, may negatively impact their immediate images, as well as only exacerbate the issues they're trying to circumvent.
With many gamers making buying decisions off of Let's Play videos, it could be added that the current expense of games is what drives the decision to not be as hasty as can be when buying a game. With games running up to if not more than $60 per game, the cost of the hobby/lifestyle is increasing as economic tensions show no sign of easing on those that have the means to make enough money to partake in the hobby, while those who are younger may be solely dependent on their guardian or parent for game-purchasing. In that sense, Let's Play's are vital for them to make purchases of games they find funny, entertaining, or compelling, and, with the move by publishers to remove Let's Plays and remove videos that do not directly benefit them, they may ultimately lose the younger audience for their games, some of whom my not be inclined to patronize those game designers future works after their favorite Let's Play-ers are effectively chained or destroyed.
It can be speculated that these efforts are likely happening now at the new current console generation because there is increased precedent for such struggles. With the arrival of more powerful (and arguably that's the extent of the difference) machines, and something so resounding and definitive as "new console generation", publishers may be attempting to get this business out of the way before the consoles move into major production, as an attempt like this during mid-generation would be far more devastating to them then were they to enact these rather draconian restrictions at the start of a new current-gen-era.
Ultimately, with the revenue lost due to lack of independent exposure, as well as goodwill being lost, and games continuing to fail to meet unrealistic sales marks, it would appear that this practice will only end up being a bad decision for game companies, and by shooting themselves in the feet like this to spite the ground they walk on will only make their already strained business practices more pronounced. While I have have hope that this decision will be swiftly reversed, I must also admit a semi-sadistic hope that these game companies will see their games continue to fail harsher and harsher as more and more Let's Plays are removed under the guise of copyright infringement.
The point that I'm trying to make there is that more and more triple-A games have been failing recently (according to publishers in determining production costs over sales revenue), with COD:Ghosts, Assassin's Creed IV, and others just not making up for their incredible production costs. I have to pose the question whether or not the fact that players can see into these games to make their initial buying decision, and seeing a game they like or dislike, will make decisions based not on marketing or official media, but on independent media such as Let's Plays. One must wonder if they (the publishers and developers) are worried that a look into their product beforehand may sway enough people to not buy their game, which would lose them money. However, it should be noted that by attacking Let's Plays, they either must have data, or only assumption, that the amount of revenue lost by unofficial media is equal or greater to that of the gape between their successful game and a financial failure.
Let's Plays also tend to have a good sway, with such prominent Let's Plays as PewDiePie, there are a lot of people who may have no intention of buying the game, yet still can experience the story and game play via Let's Plays. In this light, there is a point where some significant money is lost for publishers. When an individual may not have the proper console to play a specific game, a Let's Play video may instead allow someone to not buy the game, yet experience the story and mechanics, thereby allowing someone to enjoy the game without cost. The difference between Let's Plays and simply sharing a game is that a Let's Play will reach sometimes reach millions of people, while as an individual you'd be hard pressed to match that audience. In that respect, game makers/producers certainly have some real concern over the revenue that may be lost by Let's Play videos, yet I get the sense that most large Let's Play producers by now have some affiliation with a publisher or producer, and those that don't will end up having those videos removed, which, at least from my limited perspective, may negatively impact their immediate images, as well as only exacerbate the issues they're trying to circumvent.
With many gamers making buying decisions off of Let's Play videos, it could be added that the current expense of games is what drives the decision to not be as hasty as can be when buying a game. With games running up to if not more than $60 per game, the cost of the hobby/lifestyle is increasing as economic tensions show no sign of easing on those that have the means to make enough money to partake in the hobby, while those who are younger may be solely dependent on their guardian or parent for game-purchasing. In that sense, Let's Play's are vital for them to make purchases of games they find funny, entertaining, or compelling, and, with the move by publishers to remove Let's Plays and remove videos that do not directly benefit them, they may ultimately lose the younger audience for their games, some of whom my not be inclined to patronize those game designers future works after their favorite Let's Play-ers are effectively chained or destroyed.
It can be speculated that these efforts are likely happening now at the new current console generation because there is increased precedent for such struggles. With the arrival of more powerful (and arguably that's the extent of the difference) machines, and something so resounding and definitive as "new console generation", publishers may be attempting to get this business out of the way before the consoles move into major production, as an attempt like this during mid-generation would be far more devastating to them then were they to enact these rather draconian restrictions at the start of a new current-gen-era.
Ultimately, with the revenue lost due to lack of independent exposure, as well as goodwill being lost, and games continuing to fail to meet unrealistic sales marks, it would appear that this practice will only end up being a bad decision for game companies, and by shooting themselves in the feet like this to spite the ground they walk on will only make their already strained business practices more pronounced. While I have have hope that this decision will be swiftly reversed, I must also admit a semi-sadistic hope that these game companies will see their games continue to fail harsher and harsher as more and more Let's Plays are removed under the guise of copyright infringement.
You're totally right, people who enjoy their jobs simply don't count.version4point7 said:
And it's not just full-time LPers either, there's musicians, indie game developers, actors, writers (particularly ones that "work" for websites so they get to stay at home) and all kinds of other people who don't have actual jobs.
I mean, these people should get a real job and then go back to making games/music/films/articles and see which is work. I spent hours making short songs for fun and no money and loved it.
Just in case it doesn't translate well over the internet, that was sarcasm and I disagree with his point, just because doing something as a hobby is enjoyable doesn't mean it can't be used to make a living from if you put in the extra work.