kilenem said:
I don't like that some people are saying that the copy right laws are out of date because video games are a different experience then TV or film. Politicians in the U.S are trying to censor games because they claim video games are different then TV and film so it shouldn't have protection under the first amendment.If the Copy right laws are out of date wouldn't the 1st amendment be out of date to since it was written at the same time it was okay to own a slave.
You can't compare idiotic (and ill-informed) politics or the time that the First Amendment was written to video games and copyright.
Video games, when compared to TV or film, are a very interactive experience. You can't get the full experience of a video game by simply watching a video. Even in many story-driven games, there is an interactive element to it (ex. moral choice system) that simply cannot be conveyed to the viewer unless they go out and experience the game for themselves. I knew much about Mass Effect and The Walking Dead before going into them, but the interactive elements drastically improved my view of the stories. The thing is, video games are something you have to experience for yourself, and you can only experience it for yourself if you play it, as videos are inadequate to conveying the experience of the game. Now, compare that TV or film, where simply watching the entire thing on YouTube gets you the full experience, minus the ads that come up, but that's hardly different than watching the show or movie on TV. So with TV and film, you can get the full experience on YouTube, but video games require you to play them to get the full experience. Copyright law hardly accounts for this. I believe even Rockstar, which hardly has the best reputation for dealing with their YouTube audience, has acknowledged this difference in the past, saying you can post gameplay but leave spoilers (the non-interactive story elements) out. Of course, this probably isn't the only issue that you can bring up.
The thing is, you're trying to compare this to political games and the time laws were written. The First Amendment has little to do with slavery (and hardly legalizes it), so changes in slavery obviously aren't going to cause us to completely scrap the First Amendment. We did, however, make some changes in the way we interpreted it in light of new information, which is more similar to the copyright law complaints (though not entirely the same thing). As for politicians attacking games, they are doing it simply based on outdated information, horrible and beyond biased studies, and political ideologies (not to mention business) that require many in Washington and the media to protect weapons manufacturers, support the NRA in some way, etc. They aren't doing it because of any actual concern, such as with the concerns about copyright, but because they refuse to accept the fact that video games aren't as harmful as they claim in favor of their political ideologies and business interests.
kilenem said:
I know some people wanted to say the fair use clause protects against Nintendo's copy right claims. From my understanding if you don't get permission to use content for profit, that content has to be used for educational purposes or parody purposes. Channels like Lore or did you know seem like they would be protected from copy right claims because that is informing people of the history of gaming. Rom hacks or Game MODS seem like they would be protected under parody laws. I don't see how lets plays would be protected.
Yeah, based on my understanding, fair use is taken a little too far. It hardly protects a Let's Play (though it shouldn't have to), as Fair Use is mostly supposed to help encourage better education, of which reviews seem to come the closest to doing this. Then again, I don't know as much about this as I probably should, so there might be some ruling that could be interpreted as protecting things such as Let's Plays, but again, I don't think that it should even be necessary to begin with.
AzrealMaximillion said:
The Game Grumps just finished a let's play series of Super Mario Sunshine with no problem.
TotalBiscuit's Co-Optional Podcast featuring Jim Sterling was not allowed to be monetized due to Nintendo's automated system flagging them for playing a trailer of a Nintendo game in their video.
The Game Grumps I assume had gotten permission from Nintendo to make the let's play series. They had to.
The Co-Optional Podcast's playing of the trailer was to comment on it, which is protected under Fair Use law if I'm not mistaken. That video was flagged anyways.
Isn't "commentary" supposed to be a reference to educational use? In other words, based on my understanding, commenting on a commercial doesn't seem to fully come under Fair Use protection and is subject to the owner's willingness to let you use it, as it has little to do with an actual educational setting. I understand you could say that you are educating people on the product, but that's sort of a gray area, which will likely favor the owner. And like I said above, there is a difference between a Let's Play and commenting on a commercial, as the commercial taken in full as there is no interactive element to it that requires you to go beyond just watching the video to get the full experience. That might be why something like a Sunshine playthrough get's through but using a commercial in a video doesn't (not to mention, Sunshine is a rather old game that Nintendo probably doesn't care about anymore).
Anyways, I still don't think Nintendo should censor a video just because it has footage from their commercials/trailers. It seems rather dumb from a business perspective, as it limits exposure to the product, and they hardly are getting anything themselves by blocking a video which otherwise has little to do with the commercial, so people are hardly going to seek it out there and cause Nintendo to lose their own ad revenue in the process. Even if there isn't much of a legal or moral argument against it, just the business argument should be enough to show how stupid Nintendo's actions on this are.
