Major Changes In Youtube Involving Let's Players

[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?

 

[Tanis]

It's still like this that makes me hope youtube ends up like myspace.

 

[Roxas1359]

That said then, also wouldn't modding the content, community patches and other activities in a similar vain be regarded as breaking the EULA?

In many EULA that is actually breaking the contracts of it. Modifications of games without the approval of the developer is against the EULAs of many, but it depends on how the publisher/developer acts upon it.
For example, take the Sonic community for example. There have been many mods that have been shut down by SEGA for "violating copyright" which is stated in many EULAs to be a violation. Modification of consoles is generally not allowed either, with in the past it being more that you would just void the warranty, but with how consoles and other devices can connect to the internet now if modification is detected then it will either be disabled or your console will be bricked.

Now if the publisher/developer allows for modding then everything is pretty much open season as legally you've been given the right to modify. It's why Bethesda is very well received in the modding community, because the tools for it have been released officially by Bethesda and Bethesda encourages mods. Minecraft is similar in this as Mojang allows for mods to be made, but as such if fan mods are made and someone were to get in legal trouble then Mojang is not legally responsible for that mod and aren't affected.

 

[Rellik San]

That said then, also wouldn't modding the content, community patches and other activities in a similar vain be regarded as breaking the EULA?

In many EULA that is actually breaking the contracts of it. Modifications of games without the approval of the developer is against the EULAs of many, but it depends on how the publisher/developer acts upon it.
For example, take the Sonic community for example. There have been many mods that have been shut down by SEGA for "violating copyright" which is stated in many EULAs to be a violation. Modification of consoles is generally not allowed either, with in the past it being more that you would just void the warranty, but with how consoles and other devices can connect to the internet now if modification is detected then it will either be disabled or your console will be bricked.

Now if the publisher/developer allows for modding then everything is pretty much open season as legally you've been given the right to modify. It's why Bethesda is very well received in the modding community, because the tools for it have been released officially by Bethesda and Bethesda encourages mods. Minecraft is similar in this as Mojang allows for mods to be made, but as such if fan mods are made and someone were to get in legal trouble then Mojang is not legally responsible for that mod and aren't affected.

So... in effect, creating a community patch because a game has trouble working, in other words, making the product (sorry licensed product) functional on your machine could be breaching the EULA and as a result see you shut down or worse?

That... is a really sad state of affairs. I've never been a fan of EULAs to begin with, too much legal jargon that could be condensed into a shorter format that's easier to understand, I know it has to be full of legal jargon to be a formal contract... but still something needs to be done. That said, guess I'm preaching to a lot of the choir here.

 

[Roxas1359]

So... in effect, creating a community patch because a game has trouble working, in other words, making the product (sorry licensed product) functional on your machine could be breaching the EULA and as a result see you shut down or worse?

That... is a really sad state of affairs. I've never been a fan of EULAs to begin with, too much legal jargon that could be condensed into a shorter format that's easier to understand, I know it has to be full of legal jargon to be a formal contract... but still something needs to be done. That said, guess I'm preaching to a lot of the choir here.

Pretty much yeah, but again it depends on how the company handles it. When it comes to older games then patching it is usually fine as the older companies either a) are defunct now, or b) allow for modding it for compatibility issues. It's also why game companies tell you to wait for their official patches since they have access to the Master Rom and main programming so can generally patch things better. Another reason is that if a community patch were to go viral and many people were to download it, and then their games suddenly stopped working, then the publisher/developer could be held responsible for the damages, hence why many companies put in their EULAs a clause about modification and what you can and can't do.

But in the end it comes down to how a company responds and acts based on possible modifications, Bethesda and Mojang saying it's okay, while companies like Activision/Sega/Nintendo say it's a no-no. While there are indeed exceptions to it, most companies don't want mods going around as much, especially in multiplayer games, in which mods could possible lead to balancing issues. For example, Steam allows mods on TF2 and the creation of items, but it goes through a process to see if it is legal to use in online matches, and banning items that could be deemed overpowered, etc.

 

[Rellik San]

Just one last quick thought, typically a EULA is none transferable, so surely if one was a binding contract in any fashion, that would mean the resale of games would completely illegal surely?

As right of resale implies ownership of the product, not a single use license. In that case then, couldn't it be successful argued that these are consumer products not licenses sold? I know things like Online Passes kind of circumvent it by asking you to buy a new license for multi-player... but by and large.

 

[Roxas1359]

Just one last quick thought, typically a EULA is none transferable, so surely if one was a binding contract in any fashion, that would mean the resale of games would completely illegal surely?

As right of resale implies ownership of the product, not a single use license. In that case then, couldn't it be successful argued that these are consumer products not licenses sold? I know things like Online Passes kind of circumvent it by asking you to buy a new license for multi-player... but by and large.

Resale for physical media is allowed, but is trying to be curbed out by game publishers and developers over the last couple of years. Resale is allowed, but again mainly only for physical media. That's why there is a debate on whether digital resales should be allowed as well.

Another thing is that EULAs are considered binding contracts only in the United States, and in Europe (and I believe Australia as well) they do not hold up in the court of law. As such EULAs in PAL regions are generally written differently than they are in the United States, often times being worse in the US or NTSC regions. In Europe as well I believe the resale of digital games is also allowed, but I believe that was more recent and varies but I'm not entirely sure on it.

 

[StormDragonZ]

I only use YouTube to watch TAS runners, speedrunners and those who do Longplays without commentary, thought it depends on the person.

This is all a greed matter, really. It's sad. I honestly didn't even consider YouTube possibly entering the same situation MySpace had those many years ago...

But here we are.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

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.

So all of those NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, Playstation, Playstation 2, X-box, DS, PSP, ect. ect. games that people have sold are all being illegally sold to other people or businesses? What the EULA (At least in physical form) means is that you are not allowed to do stuff with the actual software involved with the game like distributing it to other people. The pixels on the screen that are producing an image are not the software, they are the end product of what the software is doing but a person can't replicate a video-game by looking at gameplay footage.

That's what makes a video-game different from a movie, if someone uploads a movie to Youtube, that is the final product, putting up the movie has replicated the product without permission and in a way that can lose the makers of the movie, money. Putting up a video of me playing Earthbound is not going to allow people to play Earthbound, just as uploading me playing a song is not going to allow someone to replicate the violin I used to play it.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

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.

If I recall correctly, that case's ruling was officially because the court(s) saw it as a product, not a license - thus establishing such in the EU. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I've heard of several cases in the U.S. that ruled the opposite, though the one court where such a decision would really matter here (the Supreme Court) has yet to tackle this subject. What we can say for certain though is that, regardless of whether or not companies consider it a license, it is meaningless if the applicable legal system(s) in place says otherwise.

 

[-Dragmire-]

SNIP

But the LP's are making money out of someone elses property. I'm pretty sure ost EULA's state that a game can't be used for personal profit. Shouldn't the LP's pay some royalties to the owner of the game? As we all know, when you purchase a disk/digital copy of a game you're purchasing the license to play it. Same with a film or album.

The game doesn't become your property. Similar to the pre-owned game market. Publishers introduced online passes to ensure they were being paid for people using their games. While I never liked it I most certainly didn't disagree with it. Why should anyone get to use an online service that they haven't paid to help maintain?

EDIT: Try yet another perspective. Dave has worked his arse off. Dave finished some project that'll make his own and Jane's life easier increasing both of their productivity. Jane takese credit then gets a pay rise.

Dave's life has been made easier which is nice but no pay rise. Jane is reaping the financial reward from Dave's work. Why didn't Dave get a raise? Jane has done nothing to earn it other than use Dave's idea.

Incase people can't wrap their head around this....
Dave = Game's Publishers
Jane = LP's
Idea = Game

Gotta say, I have a hard time supporting Dave's side with his 7-10 figure income compared to Jane's 5 figure income.

Jane's raise was from no income as in this situation, her livelihood is dependent on other people's ideas that she places a personal spin on. The amount to which Dave's idea became easier is debatable and is highly dependent on the quality of said idea.

In the event that the pros and cons of the idea are completely even then the end result is one more person in the world is happily earning an income to the benefit of their audience and to the detriment of no one.

 

[lapan]

And then what? something, someone bigger will come along and take it's place.

As long as it has better policies than google that wouldn't be a bad thing. Youtube has a history of every update creating more problems than it solves and their pushing of google+ and real names is getting annoying.

 

[-Dragmire-]

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

Depends on what you think theft is. The idea of theft is centered around scarcity, where the property of one is taken by another with no agreement over conditions taking place. Due to software's nature of being infinitely transferable, the rules of scarcity do not apply so content creators have gone through steps to create artificial scarcity. Thus, intellectual property is a thing now. It was first created with the idea that a creator benefits from a temporary monopoly over their idea, then be open to everyone without restriction so others can use it to create something new and, over time, advance society as a whole.

This... hasn't been working out well lately. Instead of expanding the amount of people who can benefit from an idea, the push for more control over an idea has never been stronger. Nintendo had revenue streams divert to them (not sure if they caved to public outcry and stopped that though), I imagine similar thoughts are on the minds of many other publishers too.

On a different note, I wonder how much advertising deals with publishers are connected to this whole thing. Cross promotional agreements can't control what advertises on LPs which could lead to promotions for competing products on what was supposed to be an exclusive agreement.

 

[hickwarrior]

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

This... hasn't been working out well lately. Instead of expanding the amount of people who can benefit from an idea, the push for more control over an idea has never been stronger. Nintendo had revenue streams divert to them (not sure if they caved to public outcry and stopped that though), I imagine similar thoughts are on the minds of many other publishers too.

Nevermind that IP law is outdated, if TB is to be believed. And it's abused, but more on the american side than anything. The problem is, IP started out as a way of protection to artists. But over time, funding got pulled, so the office needed some way to make money. Making it easier, getting more contracts, thus more money.

I don't know how exactly it worked, but I remember seeing a video on this subject during the SOPA/PIPA debacle. I think it explained in a documentary what is going on with IP, and why it is so problematic in these modern times.

 

[likalaruku]

Most of the Youtubers I'm subscribed to post game reviews, game theories, game creepypastas, easter eggs hunts, game poops, glitch compilations, mod showcases, & game corruptions.

 

[Strazdas]

1: What do you think of this sudden change happening next year?
They have always been able to do this, its just that like music industry, they are finally waking up and realizing internet exists.

2: Are you worried about your favorite Let's Player's future?
I dont follow any let's player (i follow certain games, but not people), so i cant say either way. Lets plays in general? yes, i am worried about them blocking it like they are blocking public domain movies from youtube.

Though i got a cousin that wants to live off streaming his gaming, so this could potentially destroy his dream.

3: Do You Think This should have happened a long time ago, and are proud of Youtube's Decision?
No. more in freestyle.

4: Anyone think that Video Game Crash is going to happen due to this being one of the factors?
No. Game crash will not happen. the market is too diverse for this. Let's plays are popular but not THAT popular.

5: Which Let's Players do you think would be fine with this outcome? Which ones do you think would not be?
Most let's player i watch do not monetize their channels to the best of my knowledge, so if they were agasitn it it would be purely out of moral reasoning.

6: Freestlye Final Thoughts - Your take on this with a good conclusion?
I dont think a company should be legal able to deny us ability to make lets play of their games. It is. Therefore solution is to change the laws so they could not. ANd why not fix copyright while were at it? (and i dont mean removing it, i mean fixing it)