- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- Nintendo was right all along. Let's Plays aren't protected by fair use.
|
https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/907025967813668865
Wonder if our lawyer friend will make a return and share some knowledge on this subject. Suddenly Nintendo's 50/50 program doesn't seem all that bad.
CreviceCretin - Mario games are for little kids grow up and kill something.
^ 213 people agree that it's ignorance at its finest. |
|
LazyLink posted...
Another Karmic Dragon flopic USER INFO: LAZYLINK Provisional User Since: Sep 2017 Karma: 0 Active Posts: 1 Welcome to the board, I'm honored my topic was worthy of your first post. Blayshy posted... That's weird, I thought they were, just like commentaries, reviews and the like? That's what people have been claiming for years, but it turns out that is not the case. It's always been a grey area. If you were to upload videos of an entire show, while commentating on what's happening in the show, there's no way that would go over well, right?
CreviceCretin - Mario games are for little kids grow up and kill something.
^ 213 people agree that it's ignorance at its finest. |
|
Gamersoft posted...
Except it is wrong to file a DMCA claim against someone who offended you. With Youtube's automated system, what's the difference between this and a legit DMCA claim?
Uh... A-Are you sure to interact with others?
-Mario, Ganondorf, Sonic, Bowser Jr. / Wendy, Duck Hunt, Marth, Mewtwo Mainer. |
|
Blayshy posted...
That's weird, I thought they were, just like commentaries, reviews and the like? I mean, you can't upload a movie to YouTube just because you're providing commentary throughout. Of course, games are generally different because much of the experience requires you to play the game yourself, plus different gamers will play the same game in very different ways, and there's often quite a bit of editing involved in LPs (unless you're lazy and incompetent like DSP). However, I could definitely see different rules applying to stuff like visual novels and walking simulators, where you could get pretty much the whole experience just from watching a playthrough on YouTube.
Yeah... Sorry.
|
|
JorgenDev posted...
I think it depends. The cringey "100% Full Walkthrough Part 17" videos I feel 100% deserve to be demonetized. But if it's edited differently for a review or something more creative, then I think it's rather unfair. Reviews are fair use. Criticism is fair use. Compilations of funny moments/etc are most likely also fair use.
CreviceCretin - Mario games are for little kids grow up and kill something.
^ 213 people agree that it's ignorance at its finest. |
|
Blayshy posted...
That's weird, I thought they were, just like commentaries, reviews and the like? What is this, MST3K?
Retail Wii U and 3DS games: https://sta.sh/02egamz324w0
Retail PS4 and VITA games: https://sta.sh/09xbomh9bc4 |
|
Karmic Dragon2003 posted...
The key difference being you do not get the experience of actually PLAYING the game from watching an LP.
Generic Signature
|
|
Romaji posted...
Karmic Dragon2003 posted... And you don't get the same experience listening to some youtuber narrating a show as you would get from watching the show itself.
CreviceCretin - Mario games are for little kids grow up and kill something.
^ 213 people agree that it's ignorance at its finest. |
|
Karmic Dragon2003 posted...
JorgenDev posted...I think it depends. The cringey "100% Full Walkthrough Part 17" videos I feel 100% deserve to be demonetized. But if it's edited differently for a review or something more creative, then I think it's rather unfair. I agree. |
|
When you literally play through the game and comment on it, it's never been fair use. On like a DVD special feature, there's no case where like a director commentates on a completely different movie and sells it publicly. That'd have been a major outcry especially if the director didn't get permission to essentially post that entire movie on there.
"Iwata was awesome" - Mr. Nintendo
dinglebutt |
|
There's something like four components to fair use, and Let's Plays fail most of them. They have to much footage that isn't necessary to the commentary, and they can often serve as a market replacement (every time someone is told to watch a Let's Play instead of buying a game, the case for them not being fair use is made stronger).
DuranmanX4 posted... Blayshy posted...That's weird, I thought they were, just like commentaries, reviews and the like? There's a reason RiffTrax only release audio commentary for movies they don't also purchase the rights to.
LOTFMBAFIARLMWIIAEIAMTPALTNWISETIICMPRTATSFOOMB
|
|
optimusmart posted...
So one lawyers opinion = fact That seems to be one more than the number that says Let's Play is fair use, afaik.
"When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters. |
|
legendarylemur posted...
When you literally play through the game and comment on it, it's never been fair use. People on this board have argued otherwise. "Nintendo abusing DMCA to take down Let's Plays that are protected by fair use! So evil!". We even had someone claiming to be a lawyer on the board claiming that the h3h3 lawsuit meant that let's plays were fair use, it was pretty funny.
CreviceCretin - Mario games are for little kids grow up and kill something.
^ 213 people agree that it's ignorance at its finest. |
|
Of course it's not fair use. What do people actually think fair use means?
Fools Rush In - A demonic webcomic
http://www.foolscomic.com |
|
PS4always posted...
LazyLink posted...Another Karmic Dragon flopic He's the new Ynot Zoidberg / Torgo of this board. Adorable. Sad, though, since he gives every indication of being a child, yet... might not be. =(
"They were like 11 year olds on the internet for the first time in the late 90's; NO idea how to handle criticism or negative opinions" - Kevin Smith
|
|
Even a silent 100% playthrough is fair use.
"FAIR USE: Legal doctrine that portions of copyrighted materials may be used without permission of the copyright owner provided the use is fair and reasonable, does not substantially impair the value of the materials, and does not curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner." The first portion is subjective, nobody is going to agree on what is reasonable so look to the next parts. There is no impairment of the value of the materials, the value remains intact since games are designed to be played, not watched; otherwise you can hit someone with a copyright for citing the lyrics of a song. The last part is clear, obviously the owner cannot reasonably expect another person's efforts and material to profit them, and the videos do not affect profit in any way since nobody is playing the games except the purchaser. The one and only possible exception could be the visual novel genre since there is often no gameplay and so it could be reasonably interpreted as a full intended experience just by watching it. Watching CoD is different, the experiences are entirely different.
Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.
|
|
legendarylemur posted...
"Does not curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner" and "provided the use is fair and reasonable" does not even remotely protect a 100% silent playthrough or a commentary playthrough lol. Care to put forward an argument or is your word final authority?
Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.
|
|
SSjYagami posted...
provided the use is fair and reasonable That's the very gray area that a great lawyer could argue either way if it came down to it. As far as cutting into profits goes, same thing. A great lawyer could argue well that Nintendo loses profits if people pass on buying a video game due to seeing it played already.
HEH HEH HEH
|
|
SSjYagami posted...
legendarylemur posted..."Does not curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner" and "provided the use is fair and reasonable" does not even remotely protect a 100% silent playthrough or a commentary playthrough lol. It's open ended. First off, a 100% playthrough has data suggesting that players don't go back to play the game, though a partial playthrough have shown that it doesn't particularly curtail the sales of a game. Especially a game that has a linear story structure or a non-arcade style gameplay, the argument that a 100% playthrough doesn't hurt the sales would be shot down even without proof. It's just logical. That's why stuff like League of Legends, Dota 2, and Overwatch don't even touch Youtube, but an indie developer for an RPG whose entire game gets posted online has plenty of justification to take things down. And "fair and reasonable," this is also obvious. What's even remotely reasonable about posting an entire thing somebody else made online lol... Refer to my example about a commentary of a completely different movie on a dvd
"Iwata was awesome" - Mr. Nintendo
dinglebutt |
|
SSjYagami posted...
legendarylemur posted..."Does not curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner" and "provided the use is fair and reasonable" does not even remotely protect a 100% silent playthrough or a commentary playthrough lol. I think the lawyer knows more about the law than you do, so I'd say unless a judge comments on the matter we've heard the final authority.
What I can't get over is how she ripped one testicle off..~Frogstir
I can't read your topics without expecting Bel Air now.~KensaiBlade |
|
Matelite posted...
SSjYagami posted...provided the use is fair and reasonable The lawyer would need to explain why significant amount of people would pass on a game due to witnessing play. I don't pass on buying a song because I've heard it, most people don't. Furthermore, watching a game is entirely different than playing it, same for reading about a game and we don't ban that now, do we?
Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.
|
|
Without a decision of a court or a legislative statute, the statement that Lets Play is not protected by fair use is non-binding and merely an expression of an opinion (granted, an expert opinion if given by an copyright lawyer).
However, as a lawyer myself, if a Lets Play controversy would ever do go to court, chances are the courts are likely to protect the copyrighted material. For a better understanding if a work goes beyond fair use, one must be fully aware of the four factors to be considered in determining whether a work is fair use or not. (1) The purpose and character of the use, (2) The nature of the copyrighted work, (3) The amount and substantiality of the portions used; and (4) Effect of the use upon potential market of the copyrighted work. 1) The purpose of Lets Play is primarily for profit. The streamers are sharing their experience of using a copyrighted work with the intention of making money out of it. 2) Videogaming, unlike, say, movies, are more of an interactive medium. This is the reason why LP is a legal grey area right now. 3) A video of a gameplay session in Domination of Call of Duty uploaded online would not find itself remiss in committing infringement. But a video of the entire play-through of Uncharted is clearly an issue. 4) This is likely the reason why that although there are legal vulnerabilities of LP, a LP issue hasn't found itself in the courts dockets. The fact of the matter is a LP may promote the game, especially if a popular streamer endorses the game to his massive audience. This is why a copyrighted owner usually makes a deal with the streamer (e.g sharing in the revenue), instead of asserting his copyright and suing for infringement. But LP still MAY have a negative effect upon the potential market of the copyrighted work. Games like Uncharted which is praised for its cinematic experience can be actually enjoyed in a LP by another person. An interested consumer might be dissuaded to purchase the game entirely, considering watching it in LP is free of cost. This affects the potential market of the game negatively. If a lawyer makes this argument in the courts of justice, the judge would nod his head knowingly, rub his non-existent beard and likely rule in favor of the plaintiff. tldr; LP is likely a violation of the doctrine of fair use. BUT since most copyrighted owners can actually make money of it, the issue has yet to be settled in any legally binding manner. |
|
VaelinSorna posted...
But LP still MAY have a negative effect upon the potential market of the copyrighted work. Games like Uncharted which is praised for its cinematic experience can be actually enjoyed in a LP by another person. An interested consumer might be dissuaded to purchase the game entirely, considering watching it in LP is free of cost. I did this for danganronpa 2 |
|
ecylis posted...
VaelinSorna posted...But LP still MAY have a negative effect upon the potential market of the copyrighted work. Games like Uncharted which is praised for its cinematic experience can be actually enjoyed in a LP by another person. An interested consumer might be dissuaded to purchase the game entirely, considering watching it in LP is free of cost. Exactly. Or many puzzle/riddle games like Layton. Once you see the solution, what's the point of going through and doing it yourself?
HEH HEH HEH
|
|
SSjYagami posted...
Matelite posted...SSjYagami posted...provided the use is fair and reasonable Fair use is a legal affirmative defense. As such, the defense has the burden of proof. Plaintiff could offer no evidence and still win provided that the defense does not meet the burden.
FC: 1092 - 2294 - 8760
|
|
This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who's familiar with the law. Fair Use is very limited and copyright laws favor the copyright owners to a ridiculous degree. There is no real debate, just ideologues pushing that Fair Use protects Let's Plays because they personally feel that they should protect Let's Plays. Personally I agree that ideally they should, but we don't live in an ideal world, we live in the real world.
...That said, nothing is forcing Nintendo to claim all these LP videos. They have the legal right to, but they could just as easily ignore it. Blayshy posted... That's weird, I thought they were, just like commentaries, reviews and the like? Even reviews are sketchy. Doug Walker has had to take down plenty of clip reviews, has shown consistent worry that his livelihood could completely end at any time, and has started his clipless reviews to prepare for this.
Welcome to the Internet, where stating your opinion is a declaration of war.
|
|
Karmic Dragon2003 posted...
https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/907025967813668865 let's plays were NEVER covered under fair use... people don't know what the f they're talking about.... Just publishers/streamers have never TRULY wanted to push the issue because once you go to court you set a precedent... Both sides have been too scared to push it that far because one you do, there's no going back and it'll change the landscape of the industry drastically. Let's plays and say doing a review of a game and using the game footage in your video aren't the same thing.... That's what Jim sterlings lawsuit was about... Reviewing a game and using that games footage. He won the case and now there's precedent for that.
PSN- Drew872
My PS4 games collection: http://www.gamefaqs.com/users/LoyalToTheGame/games/owned or http://psnprofiles.com/Drew872 |
|
DiscostewSM posted...
optimusmart posted...So one lawyers opinion = fact Yeah if I recall the main source of saying making money off Let's Plays was perfectly fine and fair use mysteriously happened to be the letsplayers who were making money off letsplays.
'The fact of the matter is that we've been here constantly. We've been betraying peoples expectations, in a good way, for a long time.'
3DS: 2449-4649-4995 |
|
It depends on the type of game being played if they can be considered fair use to monetize them. Games like Mario Party, Mario Kart, CoD, Street Fighter, Smash Bros., multi-player puzzle games, other FPSs etc. Multi-player games should in fact be protected by fair use the same way someone playing Monopoly, Clue, or Dungeon's & Dragon in a video would be protected. It's the nature of multi-player games and the experience that can not be duplicated by just the game itself. The user themselves provided content once removed would not be experienced the same as the video, and some games its no longer possible to experience them that way normally(any Mario Kart Wii online video for example).
On the other hand an RPG being played by someone in 100% Walkthough with all the story segments show, is not something that realistically should be protected. It has the very same flaw Mystery Science Theater 3000 had on what movies they could use. The thing is they sort of need to exist in the form they are as a person can not put a voice over commentary track to game. MST3K went to selling little voice over tracks to played along side movies, whence they didn't have money to buy the rights as a TV show anymore. Such a thing just wouldn't work for Youtubers, as it relys on how they play the game. Still arguing about monetization is stupid here, just be glad they don't pull videos entirely. Note speed runs are a different story as are glitch fests, the contexts is entirely different. Skipping dialog is part of the standard, as well as using Japanese versions to speed text up. Of course there are some grey areas for fan translation, that's a different book. |
|
legendarylemur posted...
SSjYagami posted...legendarylemur posted..."Does not curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner" and "provided the use is fair and reasonable" does not even remotely protect a 100% silent playthrough or a commentary playthrough lol. Witnessing a 100% playthrough is not experienced, merely witnessed. I and many others use them as tool to learn the game or discover secrets, not to substitute play. I already previously stated that certain genres could be exceptions, but the only one I can think of is visual novels. Even most of those have branching pathways based on decisions, puzzles, achievements, and other gameplay elements which are designed to incentivize participation. In fact, here's an anecdote; I like visual novels but don't watch them rather than play them, even though I could never afford to buy all the ones I want. Why don't I? Is it because I am nice and want to support the game industry? No, it is because I can't control the speed of the dialogue, and if I pause it or fast forward it then the music, and therefore immersion, is broken for me. I have a hard time believing a significant amount of people would choose to substitute more complex interactive experiences they desire and can afford with passive viewing if I won't even watch a visual novel I can't afford. Your example about a commentary of a completely different movie on a DVD is not a fair comparison. Films are designed to be passive experiences, in 99.99% of cases video games are not. Everyone will play SMB 1-1 a little differently, you can't properly substitute that with viewership and most people don't even want to. Everyone watches a movie the same way with no divergence. Different forms of media are designed to be experienced in very unique ways compared to one another. Hearing a song doesn't stop someone from wanting to purchase said song; on the contrary, it may influence them to buy it, same for seeing art. Reading a movie's synopsis won't substitute a potential viewer's experience with the film either.
Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.
|
|
AkaneJones posted...
It depends on the type of game being played if they can be considered fair use to monetize them. Games like Mario Party, Mario Kart, CoD, Street Fighter, Smash Bros., multi-player puzzle games, other FPSs etc. Multi-player games should in fact be protected by fair use the same way someone playing Monopoly, Clue, or Dungeon's & Dragon in a video would be protected. It's the nature of multi-player games and the experience that can not be duplicated by just the game itself. The user themselves provided content once removed would not be experienced the same as the video, and some games its no longer possible to experience them that way normally(any Mario Kart Wii online video for example). What's the need to monetise them in the first place? There was no shortage on playthroughs before people monetised them.
'The fact of the matter is that we've been here constantly. We've been betraying peoples expectations, in a good way, for a long time.'
3DS: 2449-4649-4995 |
|
Matelite posted...
Fran117 posted... It's actually very simple. 1. Plaintiff alleges that someone using their work is violating copyright law. Ignoring fair use, they would be as it's abundantly clear that the copyrighted work was used. 2. The defendant now claims that it's fair use, a legal exception to copyright law. They must now prove that it qualifies, legally, for that exception to support that the claim that they qualify for that exception. Think of it like a self-defense claim in a violent crime. If you're claiming self-defense, then you're admitting to the action (assault, killing, whatever), but claim that your actions fall under a legal exception to the law (i.e. you only did it to protect yourself from an attacker). |
|
BladeManEXE posted...
Matelite posted...Fran117 posted... Ah, gotcha. But for either of those to happen, the original accusation has to be established.... As in there has to be proof that the violent crime was committed in the first place (if you can't prove I did something, there's no reason I have to claim self defense, right?). That's where I was getting confused on that.
HEH HEH HEH
|
- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- Nintendo was right all along. Let's Plays aren't protected by fair use.
- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- Nintendo was right all along. Let's Plays aren't protected by fair use.
Matelite posted...BladeManEXE posted...
Matelite posted...
Fran117 posted...
Fair use is a legal affirmative defense. As such, the defense has the burden of proof. Plaintiff could offer no evidence and still win provided that the defense does not meet the burden.
How does THAT work? lol
It's actually very simple.
1. Plaintiff alleges that someone using their work is violating copyright law. Ignoring fair use, they would be as it's abundantly clear that the copyrighted work was used.
2. The defendant now claims that it's fair use, a legal exception to copyright law. They must now prove that it qualifies, legally, for that exception to support that the claim that they qualify for that exception.
Think of it like a self-defense claim in a violent crime. If you're claiming self-defense, then you're admitting to the action (assault, killing, whatever), but claim that your actions fall under a legal exception to the law (i.e. you only did it to protect yourself from an attacker).
Ah, gotcha. But for either of those to happen, the original accusation has to be established.... As in there has to be proof that the violent crime was committed in the first place (if you can't prove I did something, there's no reason I have to claim self defense, right?). That's where I was getting confused on that.
I believe there doesn't need to be proof that there was a copyright violation.There only needs to be evidence that suggests there could be a violation, whether it ends up accepted as a copyright violation or accepted as fair use is the whole reason it would go to a court so that decision can actually be made.'The fact of the matter is that we've been here constantly. We've been betraying peoples expectations, in a good way, for a long time.'
3DS: 2449-4649-4995John you're really out of your element stating the word of a single lawyer as fact. Fair use is complicated and Let's Plays fall under it.
This is what it seems like. Id rather not take the word of any one single youtuber as fact.Check out my channel!
http://twitch.tv/travisaxelis it legal to make a youtube video of yourself reading a whole book to your audience? a full lets play is at the very least similar, covering any/all plot points and spoiling the game experience without generating revenue for the original content creator.People die when they are killed.
Among horse, Red Hare. Among men, Lu Bu.arvilino posted...What's the need to monetise them in the first place? There was no shortage on playthroughs before people monetised them.
No idea however, there is a case a person can make to making a TV about gamers playing online games online, and not having to get rights to use said game in the videos. Contextually speaking, unless this was public access, they would be making some money from the process. Its functionally similar to any review show. You can't use sports streaming arguments either, as their aren't ticket sales to watch these Youtubers. It's more like sports equipment manufactures banning sports games form being televised because it shows their sports equipment in use which they are making money off of. But that's not how thing work in real life, Sports game are banned because the players team and location played do so. So applying logic to the argument it person blocking use would be the equivalent of the Youtuber.
It's also got to be remembered monetization is a feature of Google Ads. Without it it didn't exist, companies getting involved would be the akin, of TV station forced to give ad revenue to content provider base on the amount of money they made on the ads. Rather than the flat rate they payed a Movie company to air their movie/show. In this case the youtuber buying the game to play is akin to the paying of rights to air said movie, not the ad revenue. The ad revenue is akin to the money made to afford more movies.monkmith posted...is it legal to make a youtube video of yourself reading a whole book to your audience? a full lets play is at the very least similar, covering any/all plot points and spoiling the game experience without generating revenue for the original content creator.
according to all the supporters of fair use somehow talking over the top of a full game "transforms" the copyright restricted material into a work of public service called "critique". also it doesn't matter how many hundreds of millions of dollars a developer invests because they are small fries next to the 18 year old squeaky voiced teens out there doing awe inspiring work copying James Rolfe and PewDiePie for the laziest way in history to earn money.monkmith posted...is it legal to make a youtube video of yourself reading a whole book to your audience? a full lets play is at the very least similar, covering any/all plot points and spoiling the game experience without generating revenue for the original content creator.
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech. However, I don't believe you could sell it.
Regardless, a book isn't a game, don't conflate them. Uploading a video of someone playing XCOM isn't even in the same realm as your example.Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.SSjYagami posted...It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
No it's not, not without permission from the copyright holderecylis posted...SSjYagami posted...
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
No it's not, not without permission from the copyright holder
Incorrect, copyrights do not supersede basic human rights, God given rights, which are protected under the U.S Constitution. We can freely record ourselves and freely speak.
Enjoy being wrong.Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.SSjYagami posted...ecylis posted...
SSjYagami posted...
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
No it's not, not without permission from the copyright holder
Incorrect, copyrights do not supersede basic human rights, God given rights, which are protected under the U.S Constitution. We can freely record ourselves and freely speak.
Enjoy being wrong.
Eh, copyright doesn't play nice with the first amendment.slyman19 posted...SSjYagami posted...
ecylis posted...
SSjYagami posted...
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
No it's not, not without permission from the copyright holder
Incorrect, copyrights do not supersede basic human rights, God given rights, which are protected under the U.S Constitution. We can freely record ourselves and freely speak.
Enjoy being wrong.
Eh, copyright doesn't play nice with the first amendment.
the first amendment is very idealized
also this doesn't go into the fact there are UK streamers who might stream Japanese games
US law doesn't matter, but UK law does and probably not Japanese lawRetail Wii U and 3DS games: https://sta.sh/02egamz324w0
Retail PS4 and VITA games: https://sta.sh/09xbomh9bc4DuranmanX4 posted...slyman19 posted...
SSjYagami posted...
ecylis posted...
SSjYagami posted...
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
No it's not, not without permission from the copyright holder
Incorrect, copyrights do not supersede basic human rights, God given rights, which are protected under the U.S Constitution. We can freely record ourselves and freely speak.
Enjoy being wrong.
Eh, copyright doesn't play nice with the first amendment.
the first amendment is very idealized
also this doesn't go into the fact there are UK streamers who might stream Japanese games
US law doesn't matter, but UK law does and probably not Japanese law
To be fair, the first amendment is one of the greatest things created by mankind. It ensures the US won't become like Canada or the U.K. where police knock down your door for insulting Muslims.slyman19 posted...To be fair, the first amendment is one of the greatest things created by mankind.
so are the ten commandments, but not everyone who believes in them, follows themRetail Wii U and 3DS games: https://sta.sh/02egamz324w0
Retail PS4 and VITA games: https://sta.sh/09xbomh9bc4SSjYagami posted...ecylis posted...
SSjYagami posted...
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
No it's not, not without permission from the copyright holder
Incorrect, copyrights do not supersede basic human rights, God given rights, which are protected under the U.S Constitution. We can freely record ourselves and freely speak.
Enjoy being wrong.
I hope you know pretending to be a moron isn't trollingLoyalToTheGame posted...Karmic Dragon2003 posted...
https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/907025967813668865
Wonder if our lawyer friend will make a return and share some knowledge on this subject.
Suddenly Nintendo's 50/50 program doesn't seem all that bad.
let's plays were NEVER covered under fair use... people don't know what the f they're talking about....
Just publishers/streamers have never TRULY wanted to push the issue because once you go to court you set a precedent... Both sides have been too scared to push it that far because one you do, there's no going back and it'll change the landscape of the industry drastically.
Let's plays and say doing a review of a game and using the game footage in your video aren't the same thing....
That's what Jim sterlings lawsuit was about... Reviewing a game and using that games footage. He won the case and now there's precedent for that.
now enough with the internet lawyering... you guys don't know what you're talking about....PSN- Drew872
My PS4 games collection: http://www.gamefaqs.com/users/LoyalToTheGame/games/owned or http://psnprofiles.com/Drew872slyman19 posted...DuranmanX4 posted...
slyman19 posted...
To be fair, the first amendment is one of the greatest things created by mankind.
so are the ten commandments, but not everyone who believes in them, follows them
Uh, f*** no. Some of the commandments are good. Others are religious s***.
the big problem with the ten commandments is that they generally tell you what you can't do, as opposed to what you can do, or what the government can't doRetail Wii U and 3DS games: https://sta.sh/02egamz324w0
Retail PS4 and VITA games: https://sta.sh/09xbomh9bc4DuranmanX4 posted...slyman19 posted...
DuranmanX4 posted...
slyman19 posted...
To be fair, the first amendment is one of the greatest things created by mankind.
so are the ten commandments, but not everyone who believes in them, follows them
Uh, f*** no. Some of the commandments are good. Others are religious s***.
the big problem with the ten commandments is that they generally tell you what you can't do, as opposed to what you can do, or what the government can't do
Wouldn't it be better to say what you can't do? The list would be a hell of a lot smaller.slyman19 posted...Wouldn't it be better to say what you can't do? The list would be a hell of a lot smaller.
the Bill of Rights gets by that in the 10th amendmentRetail Wii U and 3DS games: https://sta.sh/02egamz324w0
Retail PS4 and VITA games: https://sta.sh/09xbomh9bc4ikki5 posted...By this, twitch and streaming should be shut down. Lol
Or are live streams a whole other ball of wax?
They probably are. If they weren't, video game companies could probably sue for letting someone in the same room watch you play. Streaming is just transmitting, whereas let's plays are publications.Surrender and I will destroy you peacefully. R.E.G.I.S. mk5 - Megas XLR
Omega Ruby Secret Base - https://www.dropbox.com/s/rrht5cvsjiyfnrj/SecretBase.JPGBlayshy posted...That's weird, I thought they were, just like commentaries, reviews and the like?
We really need to rewrite every copyright law in existence then, they just don't hold up the age of the internet.
Perhaps LPs are only not protected when there is no commentary? Maybe we need to be a bit more specific.Shadowbird_RH posted...ikki5 posted...
By this, twitch and streaming should be shut down. Lol
Or are live streams a whole other ball of wax?
They probably are. If they weren't, video game companies could probably sue for letting someone in the same room watch you play. Streaming is just transmitting, whereas let's plays are publications.
Yeah but one is in the privacy of your home where the other is not. It is like how you can show a movie in your home with no issues but taking it to a park with a projector for public viewing is illegal.| PSN - JSampG / NNID - Sampsonj | Toadette of the MK8 Deluxe board
"27,146 sales is a decrease from 26,114 sales (Paraphrase)" - LinetrixNothing ever falls within fair use automatically; fair use isn't a legal statute, it's a legal defense, operant on a case-by-case basis
There's really only one precedent for what constitutes fair use in a video: does your video introduce commentary or ideas not encompassed by the original game? If so, fair use is a viable defense, although how much of it constitutes fair use is the real matter of discussion. But again, fair use is not static like a statute - it is a matter of legal interpretation. It is up to a presiding judge and a jury of one's peers to decide in each instance if what is created is enough to constitute a transformative work protectable as fair use.
But a single ruling judge saying a single specific let's play does not constitute fair use will never mean 'let's plays are never fair use'
However, to those saying free speech protects all commentary automatically, copyright clause and amendment rights often clash - hence why fair use was created in the first place: to allow a balance where copyright control (which was created to incentivize individual discovery by allowing one the means to protect the tangible properties of one's work) would not prevent one from using necessary elements of a copyrighted work to provide an individual expression of ideas (which does supersede copyright).
Let's plays, however, are in a very dicey area in that they are often purely playing direct gameplay primarily for the entertainment value of the gameplay. If this were a case like Yahtzee Croshaw, who would often use his gameplay videos to comment on subjects like a podcast, Twitch streamers, who could argue fair use in a court of law in that the primary purpose of Twitch is the core added element of direct audience interaction, or a player commentary video where a player is discussing aspects of the game's development, design and/or narrative in an educational manner, it would be more likely to constitute fair use.
For anybody who's interested, the official copyright offices of Purdue, Ball State, Stanford and many other universities have listed on their web pages what they and most other copyright officiants consider the closest thing to official guidelines regarding fair use, known as the 'Four Factor Test' - I had to get accustomed to it while copyrighting and licensing sheet music I had arranged for students based on previous works (one of the reasons why people that put their video game covers up on iTunes pisses me off: whether or not you paid for licensing, if available, is one of the factors in a fair use defense, and most YouTubers trying to monetize on video game song covers refuse to pay for licenses that actually help the livelihood of the original composers, not the publishing studio), but I also had the good luck of not having to pay for a copyright lawyer since most of the schools I go to have legal representatives on retainer"How many Lowe's would Rob Lowe rob if Rob Lowe could rob Lowe's?"SSjYagami posted...ecylis posted...
SSjYagami posted...
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
No it's not, not without permission from the copyright holder
Incorrect, copyrights do not supersede basic human rights, God given rights, which are protected under the U.S Constitution. We can freely record ourselves and freely speak.
Enjoy being wrong.
The constitution does not apply here. The constitution restricts governments, not people.FC: 1092 - 2294 - 8760Starwars4J posted...SSjYagami posted...
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
Honestly what the heck do you believe free speech to be, exactly?
It doesn't matter what I, you, nor anyone else believes it to be, what matters is what it is defined as by U.S law. Free speech has already been analyzed by the Supreme Court in several cases, and the only limits include speech which directly can lead to violence. For example, someone can say "I wish I could kill that guy" but can't tell someone else "Go kill that guy." The freedom is quite expansive.
Free speech is exactly what it sounds like, speech free of restrictions except for the necessary boundaries found at the logical extreme of the ideal, like credible threats. I can recite a book from cover to cover all day if I feel like it, and can record myself doing any legal activity, such as speaking freely, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. YouTube can also do what it likes with its own private web site, however, so it can refuse to allow such a video even if there's no cash flow associated with the it, but there still won't be any infringements inherent to the video.
Why do you think fan art isn't against the law? Freedom of expression. That's why you see it in big video game magazines, those magazines and artists didn't get a license for it lmao. You can't stop someone from exhibiting any form of expression just because it intersects with your copyrights, freedom of expression trumps it at every turn, which is why we have "fair use" in the first place. Some kid drawing Sonic and a magazine featuring it doesn't take a penny out of Sega's pocket so they don't have a leg to stand on if they want to make a big deal out of it.
This is where we come back to the topic at hand. Do Let's Plays infringe on the rights of companies? In the vast majority of cases, they don't. Watching some guy 360 no scope isn't going to somehow magically dig into Activision's pockets and there's no judge who would rule otherwise. Let's Plays are here to stay for the foreseeable future.Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.Fran117 posted...SSjYagami posted...
ecylis posted...
SSjYagami posted...
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
No it's not, not without permission from the copyright holder
Incorrect, copyrights do not supersede basic human rights, God given rights, which are protected under the U.S Constitution. We can freely record ourselves and freely speak.
Enjoy being wrong.
The constitution does not apply here. The constitution restricts governments, not people.
Saying that doesn't make it true, but you're free to speak idiocies all day. The Constitution does apply and unless you can form a coherent, persuasive argument to the contrary, then I request that you please stop annoying everyone with your presence.Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.Freedom of speech doesn't protect theft of potential revenue. There are countless cases where violation of etiquette overrides freedom of speech. Otherwise, you got people ignoring cops or openly slandering races and claiming it's freedom of speech. Buzzwords need to be analyzed. You can't just throw them out and think people are gonna take the discussion seriously"Iwata was awesome" - Mr. Nintendo
dinglebuttSSjYagami posted...Fran117 posted...
SSjYagami posted...
ecylis posted...
SSjYagami posted...
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
No it's not, not without permission from the copyright holder
Incorrect, copyrights do not supersede basic human rights, God given rights, which are protected under the U.S Constitution. We can freely record ourselves and freely speak.
Enjoy being wrong.
The constitution does not apply here. The constitution restricts governments, not people.
Saying that doesn't make it true, but you're free to speak idiocies all day. The Constitution does apply and unless you can form a coherent, persuasive argument to the contrary, then I request that you please stop annoying everyone with your presence.
When people talk about free speech, they usually refer to the first amendment. Which reads: Congress shall make “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Here, the amendment is directed at the government. Specifically, it was directed at the federal government. In fact, until the 14th amendment came to be, the constitution did not even apply to the states. Indeed pre-14th amendment, states often restricted speech, and even declared state religions. Perhaps the most common example was restrictions by old state governments against the Mormons. The 14th amendment expanded the constitutional restrictions against the states via the due process clause. The process of incorporating constitutional restrictions was long, and arduous was slow. Note, that even today, the courts refuse to enforce the full bill of rights against the states. For example, there is no grand jury requirement for states criminal systems. Never in the history of the US, has the US constitution applied to restrict individuals or companies for that matter. For example, anti-discrimination laws are governed by the civil rights act and state law. While the govt. can’t jail you for your speech, company x sure can fire you.
You mentioned that you could recite a whole book, and no one could stop you. Imagine you work for a company that for some reason does not want you to recite that said book. They threaten to fire you, if you. You do it anyway because “free speech.” In that situation that company can fire you, and you cannot sue them for wrongful termination because there is no free speech protection.
Another example is in your signature. Do you think you can sue gamefaqs for deleting one of your comments? I mean 1st amendment applies right? After all, you did not make a threat. The answer is no. Private entities and private spaces are not required to protect your speech. They can honor it, but often will put parameters far more restrictive that what the 1st allows. I can provide you with some case law if you are interested.FC: 1092 - 2294 - 8760legendarylemur posted...Freedom of speech doesn't protect theft of potential revenue. There are countless cases where violation of etiquette overrides freedom of speech. Otherwise, you got people ignoring cops or openly slandering races and claiming it's freedom of speech. Buzzwords need to be analyzed. You can't just throw them out and think people are gonna take the discussion seriously
Did you just call free speech a buzzword? I smell a snowflake millennial who doesn't appreciate his rights.
Free speech does not protect against crimes, that would indeed include theft. If you can prove there's "theft of potential revenue" then there's a case, but you can't just go around making claims and expect them to hold up. Go do some research, watch Video Game Historian, he covered a few cases of copyright laws within gaming history and how they went down. It is difficult to prove someone is infringing on your rights except for in the most blatant of cases. The only reason YouTube videos are taken down on such grounds is they're big companies taking advantage of a corrupt system to oppress small fish. YouTube automatically assumes the copyright holder is right, but the law doesn't work that way. In court there would need to be evidence, and nobody can make a solid, definitive case against Let's Plays. It hasn't been done, and it won't be because it falls under fair use and everyone knows it.
People can ignore cops as long as they aren't arresting or detaining you, you're clearly very ignorant. Simply ask if you're being detained, if you're not, walk away and ignore their presence. If they issue a lawful order (keyword, lawful) you must obey, otherwise ignore them (they often make demands like "stop chewing that gum, spit it out" and such but you can and should ignore such commands as they're unlawful).
Also, you can slander races all day long and nothing can happen to you, legally. Unless you're harassing individuals or something, it is certainly covered by free speech. Yet more ignorance from you. Please refrain from speaking without knowing, thanks bud.Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.Freedom of speech has NEVER meant freedom of consequence. and people way smarter then kids on a video game message board will determine what the lines are, and what's legal and illegal.
and I repeat once more....
LoyalToTheGame posted...LoyalToTheGame posted...
Karmic Dragon2003 posted...
https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/907025967813668865
Wonder if our lawyer friend will make a return and share some knowledge on this subject.
Suddenly Nintendo's 50/50 program doesn't seem all that bad.
let's plays were NEVER covered under fair use... people don't know what the f they're talking about....
Just publishers/streamers have never TRULY wanted to push the issue because once you go to court you set a precedent... Both sides have been too scared to push it that far because one you do, there's no going back and it'll change the landscape of the industry drastically.
Let's plays and say doing a review of a game and using the game footage in your video aren't the same thing....
That's what Jim sterlings lawsuit was about... Reviewing a game and using that games footage. Also being incredibly harsh with his criticism. He won the case and now there's precedent for that.
now enough with the internet lawyering... you guys don't know what you're talking about....PSN- Drew872
My PS4 games collection: http://www.gamefaqs.com/users/LoyalToTheGame/games/owned or http://psnprofiles.com/Drew872Fran117 posted...SSjYagami posted...
Fran117 posted...
SSjYagami posted...
ecylis posted...
SSjYagami posted...
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
No it's not, not without permission from the copyright holder
Incorrect, copyrights do not supersede basic human rights, God given rights, which are protected under the U.S Constitution. We can freely record ourselves and freely speak.
Enjoy being wrong.
The constitution does not apply here. The constitution restricts governments, not people.
Saying that doesn't make it true, but you're free to speak idiocies all day. The Constitution does apply and unless you can form a coherent, persuasive argument to the contrary, then I request that you please stop annoying everyone with your presence.
When people talk about free speech, they usually refer to the first amendment. Which reads: Congress shall make “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Here, the amendment is directed at the government. Specifically, it was directed at the federal government. In fact, until the 14th amendment came to be, the constitution did not even apply to the states. Indeed pre-14th amendment, states often restricted speech, and even declared state religions. Perhaps the most common example was restrictions by old state governments against the Mormons. The 14th amendment expanded the constitutional restrictions against the states via the due process clause. The process of incorporating constitutional restrictions was long, and arduous was slow. Note, that even today, the courts refuse to enforce the full bill of rights against the states. For example, there is no grand jury requirement for states criminal systems. Never in the history of the US, has the US constitution applied to restrict individuals or companies for that matter. For example, anti-discrimination laws are governed by the civil rights act and state law. While the govt. can’t jail you for your speech, company x sure can fire you.
You mentioned that you could recite a whole book, and no one could stop you. Imagine you work for a company that for some reason does not want you to recite that said book. They threaten to fire you, if you. You do it anyway because “free speech.” In that situation that company can fire you, and you cannot sue them for wrongful termination because there is no free speech protection.
Another example is in your signature. Do you think you can sue gamefaqs for deleting one of your comments? I mean 1st amendment applies right? After all, you did not make a threat. The answer is no. Private entities and private spaces are not required to protect your speech. They can honor it, but often will put parameters far more restrictive that what the 1st allows. I can provide you with some case law if you are interested.
Wrong, free speech existed long before the first amendment and I don't know about "most people" but I specified that it is also a basic human right, and a God given right because I knew someone like you would come along. Trying to pidgeonhole free speech is a common tactic, but I see through that old trick. Censorship apologists use a similar strategy, it is a sign of defeat to cling to such disingenuous technicalities.Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.SSjYagami posted...Fran117 posted...
SSjYagami posted...
Fran117 posted...
SSjYagami posted...
ecylis posted...
SSjYagami posted...
It absolutely is legal, covered by free speech.
No it's not, not without permission from the copyright holder
Incorrect, copyrights do not supersede basic human rights, God given rights, which are protected under the U.S Constitution. We can freely record ourselves and freely speak.
Enjoy being wrong.
The constitution does not apply here. The constitution restricts governments, not people.
Saying that doesn't make it true, but you're free to speak idiocies all day. The Constitution does apply and unless you can form a coherent, persuasive argument to the contrary, then I request that you please stop annoying everyone with your presence.
When people talk about free speech, they usually refer to the first amendment. Which reads: Congress shall make “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Here, the amendment is directed at the government. Specifically, it was directed at the federal government. In fact, until the 14th amendment came to be, the constitution did not even apply to the states. Indeed pre-14th amendment, states often restricted speech, and even declared state religions. Perhaps the most common example was restrictions by old state governments against the Mormons. The 14th amendment expanded the constitutional restrictions against the states via the due process clause. The process of incorporating constitutional restrictions was long, and arduous was slow. Note, that even today, the courts refuse to enforce the full bill of rights against the states. For example, there is no grand jury requirement for states criminal systems. Never in the history of the US, has the US constitution applied to restrict individuals or companies for that matter. For example, anti-discrimination laws are governed by the civil rights act and state law. While the govt. can’t jail you for your speech, company x sure can fire you.
You mentioned that you could recite a whole book, and no one could stop you. Imagine you work for a company that for some reason does not want you to recite that said book. They threaten to fire you, if you. You do it anyway because “free speech.” In that situation that company can fire you, and you cannot sue them for wrongful termination because there is no free speech protection.
Another example is in your signature. Do you think you can sue gamefaqs for deleting one of your comments? I mean 1st amendment applies right? After all, you did not make a threat. The answer is no. Private entities and private spaces are not required to protect your speech. They can honor it, but often will put parameters far more restrictive that what the 1st allows. I can provide you with some case law if you are interested.
Wrong, free speech existed long before the first amendment and I don't know about "most people" but I specified that it is also a basic human right, and a God given right because I knew someone like you would come along. Trying to pidgeonhole free speech is a common tactic, but I see through that old trick. Censorship apologists use a similar strategy, it is a sign of defeat to cling to such disingenuous technicalities.
The best right to have is the right to bear arms. Protects all our other rights.PSN: captsplatter & Gamertag: OGcaptsplatter &
Switch FC: SW-3078-9578-8685 & Steam ID URL: http://steamcommunity.com/id/captsplattercaptsplatter_1 posted...The best right to have is the right to bear arms. Protects all our other rights.
there are many people who had guns that have lost all their rights
history is just an example of one people taking over othersRetail Wii U and 3DS games: https://sta.sh/02egamz324w0
Retail PS4 and VITA games: https://sta.sh/09xbomh9bc4DuranmanX4 posted...captsplatter_1 posted...
The best right to have is the right to bear arms. Protects all our other rights.
there are many people who had guns that have lost all their rights
history is just an example of one people taking over others
Better to have them and still lose your rights.Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.DuranmanX4 posted...captsplatter_1 posted...
The best right to have is the right to bear arms. Protects all our other rights.
there are many people who had guns that have lost all their rights
history is just an example of one people taking over others
True, but guns are the first line of defense against dictators and totalitarians.Fran117 posted...The best right to have is the right to bear arms. Protects all our other rights.
Did you know that until 2008 and onward, 2nd amendment wasn't even applied fully to the states? Moreover it was a 5/4 decision on party lines.
I was unaware of that.
Similarly, Mississippi didn't officially ratify the 13th amendment until 2013.InnerSpace posted...Nothing ever falls within fair use automatically; fair use isn't a legal statute, it's a legal defense, operant on a case-by-case basis
There's really only one precedent for what constitutes fair use in a video: does your video introduce commentary or ideas not encompassed by the original game? If so, fair use is a viable defense, although how much of it constitutes fair use is the real matter of discussion. But again, fair use is not static like a statute - it is a matter of legal interpretation. It is up to a presiding judge and a jury of one's peers to decide in each instance if what is created is enough to constitute a transformative work protectable as fair use.
But a single ruling judge saying a single specific let's play does not constitute fair use will never mean 'let's plays are never fair use'
However, to those saying free speech protects all commentary automatically, copyright clause and amendment rights often clash - hence why fair use was created in the first place: to allow a balance where copyright control (which was created to incentivize individual discovery by allowing one the means to protect the tangible properties of one's work) would not prevent one from using necessary elements of a copyrighted work to provide an individual expression of ideas (which does supersede copyright).
Let's plays, however, are in a very dicey area in that they are often purely playing direct gameplay primarily for the entertainment value of the gameplay. If this were a case like Yahtzee Croshaw, who would often use his gameplay videos to comment on subjects like a podcast, Twitch streamers, who could argue fair use in a court of law in that the primary purpose of Twitch is the core added element of direct audience interaction, or a player commentary video where a player is discussing aspects of the game's development, design and/or narrative in an educational manner, it would be more likely to constitute fair use.
For anybody who's interested, the official copyright offices of Purdue, Ball State, Stanford and many other universities have listed on their web pages what they and most other copyright officiants consider the closest thing to official guidelines regarding fair use, known as the 'Four Factor Test' - I had to get accustomed to it while copyrighting and licensing sheet music I had arranged for students based on previous works (one of the reasons why people that put their video game covers up on iTunes pisses me off: whether or not you paid for licensing, if available, is one of the factors in a fair use defense, and most YouTubers trying to monetize on video game song covers refuse to pay for licenses that actually help the livelihood of the original composers, not the publishing studio), but I also had the good luck of not having to pay for a copyright lawyer since most of the schools I go to have legal representatives on retainer
well saidSSjYagami posted...Free speech does not protect against crimes, that would indeed include theft. If you can prove there's "theft of potential revenue" then there's a case, but you can't just go around making claims and expect them to hold up
You literally said that it's perfectly acceptable under the law to transcribe and redistribute a copyrighted work (in this case, a book) in its entirety because we have free speech
What is the point of copyright then?Lets play maybe, REVIEWS!!!, they are protected as fair use.
Something people at Nintendo are initially ignoring.
You have to remember, Nintendo is no stranger trying to bully people into using their games eve as fair use, just google how they used to fight all small time renting stores and even went to court with Blockbuster multiple times.
While Sega welcomed the idea of renting, Nintendo are just really old people creating toys for kids, but still behind the times as they are still old geezers angry at everythingPSN:yahyano1it has always depended on how you present your video. there is no set in stone rules about it but there are limits and boundaries you probably need to stay inside if you want a better chance of not being taken down.3DS FC: 2063-0061-2915
``if the system is easy to develop for then that just confirms how weak it is" shaunme - 2014slyman19 posted...DuranmanX4 posted...
captsplatter_1 posted...
The best right to have is the right to bear arms. Protects all our other rights.
there are many people who had guns that have lost all their rights
history is just an example of one people taking over others
True, but guns are the first line of defense against dictators and totalitarians.
Well you can die knowing you triedRetail Wii U and 3DS games: https://sta.sh/02egamz324w0
Retail PS4 and VITA games: https://sta.sh/09xbomh9bc4DuranmanX4 posted...slyman19 posted...
DuranmanX4 posted...
captsplatter_1 posted...
The best right to have is the right to bear arms. Protects all our other rights.
there are many people who had guns that have lost all their rights
history is just an example of one people taking over others
True, but guns are the first line of defense against dictators and totalitarians.
Well you can die knowing you tried
Better to try than not in a situation like that.yahya_no_1 posted...Lets play maybe, REVIEWS!!!, they are protected as fair use.
Something people at Nintendo are initially ignoring.
You have to remember, Nintendo is no stranger trying to bully people into using their games eve as fair use, just google how they used to fight all small time renting stores and even went to court with Blockbuster multiple times.
While Sega welcomed the idea of renting, Nintendo are just really old people creating toys for kids, but still behind the times as they are still old geezers angry at everything
I think against renting stores its probably just protecting the value of their games like they have always done. since they dont want people only paying a couple of dollars to play through their games.3DS FC: 2063-0061-2915
``if the system is easy to develop for then that just confirms how weak it is" shaunme - 2014- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- Nintendo was right all along. Let's Plays aren't protected by fair use.
- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- Nintendo was right all along. Let's Plays aren't protected by fair use.
ecylis posted...SSjYagami posted...
Free speech does not protect against crimes, that would indeed include theft. If you can prove there's "theft of potential revenue" then there's a case, but you can't just go around making claims and expect them to hold up
You literally said that it's perfectly acceptable under the law to transcribe and redistribute a copyrighted work (in this case, a book) in its entirety because we have free speech
What is the point of copyright then?
https://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/why_does_united_states_have_copyright_laws
"Although the official purpose of U.S. copyright law is to “stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good,” Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975), lawmakers justify the need for copyright laws with a variety of reasons."
(1) They prevent other people from passing another’s work off as their own.
(2) They help ensure the creator of a work received continued compensation for his work if that compensation is due.
(3) They help ensure the creator of a work is recognized and compensated when that work is distributed or added to.
(4) They prevent others from cheapening the original work.
Imagine a novelist who has written a series of books, each starring the same character. Now, imagine how that author would feel if other authors started writing books about the same character without her permission. Such an influx of derivative works would take away potential payment for the original author and dilute the stature of the original work, regardless of quality."
YouTubers are not passing off any work as their own creation, they do not interfere with due compensation (arguable, but not reasonably so in my view), they do not prevent recognition, nor cheapen the original work as stated. Maybe you can argue that if someone watches a game they won't buy it, but that's simply not true in the vast majority of cases and can even have an opposite effect.
Copyright isn't to stop someone from using your work in any way, only to prevent unreasonable use...unfair use, you may say.Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.LOL internet lawyers never stop.PSN- Drew872
My PS4 games collection: http://www.gamefaqs.com/users/LoyalToTheGame/games/owned or http://psnprofiles.com/Drew872captsplatter_1 posted...The best right to have is the right to bear arms. Protects all our other rights.
Thank goodness for that, because I'd hate to lose the two I bear right now."When you've got no argument, say something bad about <x>."
Perfectly explains why the Nintendo boards are toxic and are full of trolls/haters.And the game of Cat and Mouse on Youtube just got more intense.
Also lots of youtube lets players have been lets playing Fan created games from all franchises that Nintendo makes. Especially Mario and Pokemon. Those shutdowns of fan games like am2r and prism (Both are still playable btw) haven't stopped people from broadcasting to play it XD.GdayGoogle actually tells you what you can and can't do. I will give you a few passages from the help section...
"What can I monetize?
Video game content may be monetized depending on the commercial use rights granted to you by licenses of video game publishers. Some video game publishers allow you to use all video game content for commercial use and state that in their license agreements. Likewise, videos showing software user interface may be monetized only if you have a contract with the publisher or you have paid a licensing fee.
To learn more about obtaining commercial use rights to third party content, please review how to read licenses to understand your rights and what YouTube looks for in your documentation."
This basically means if the company decides in their copyright that you can monetize things, or that you get their permission then you can do whatever you want but that is obviously not usually the case.
"What can't I monetize?
Without the appropriate license from the publisher, use of video game or software user interface must be minimal. Video game content may be monetized if the associated step-by-step commentary is strictly tied to the live action being shown and provides instructional or educational value.
Videos simply showing a user playing a video game or the use of software for extended periods of time may not be accepted for monetization."
This basically means you can monetize a walkthrough of a video game IF AND ONLY IF you are voicing it with a step by step guide. For instance you must constantly say things like *...you go left and enter the door and kill the enemy, get the key, then ... backtrack to right 3 doors and go up using the key...* for the whole video because it would then be considered "educational". Silent videos dont qualify, and neither does any large speech gap videos or any random discussion. For instance if you are playing the game and talk about pizza, and how you were eating a slice of pizza when you played the first 15 minutes of a game, you are no longer covered for monetization.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/138161?hl=en
^thats the Google page. I don't monetize my videos (I don't want that anyway) and according to this, none of my 700+ videos would qualify. As for the legal aspect, fair use is probably why they even have the sentence about making educational guides and is likely the only applicable exception.The following terms are used by the people they describe: fanboy, noob, scrub, kiddy.
My gaming videos => http://www.youtube.com/user/xoftheuniverseyahya_no_1 posted...Lets play maybe, REVIEWS!!!, they are protected as fair use.
Something people at Nintendo are initially ignoring.
You can still make a review that still has infringing gameplay footage. If you're rambling on about a certain aspect of the game and the video footage continues past the point that you demonstrated and is displaying an unrelated part of the game you can't really say that part of the footage was necessary for the purpose of the review.
Obviously the viewers may find it more entertaining and its a positive draw if there's more gameplay footage than you need to demonstrate the points of the review, but at that point the copyright holders rights are going to come into play.'The fact of the matter is that we've been here constantly. We've been betraying peoples expectations, in a good way, for a long time.'
3DS: 2449-4649-4995This conversation just gets more and more ridiculous...
I really don't have much faith in laws as they apply to businesses. Too many of them are twisted around by politicians who have been effectively bribed/blackmailed by said businesses. Gonna stop there for now though, or there'd probably be an entire book worth of text here.
As far as actual fairness goes, the videos should really only be a problem if they impact sales in a negative way. I don't know about the rest of you, but there are a number of games I've bought directly because of LPs I've seen, games that I wouldn't have given a second glance at otherwise, and none that an LP talked me out of buying.Fighting Gym Leader of the MGM League (6v6 Singles) FC:0774-4449-5042Lucario39 posted...
As far as actual fairness goes, the videos should really only be a problem if they impact sales in a negative way. I don't know about the rest of you, but there are a number of games I've bought directly because of LPs I've seen, games that I wouldn't have given a second glance at otherwise, and none that an LP talked me out of buying
It's not the videos that are the problem it's the monetisation of them. Who has the rights to claim revenue on the videos.
I mean it's fine to be wary of corporations but consider that despite being a guy area that's actually looking like it leans to the corporations rights. A 70-30 or 60-40 split on the youtubers favour for permission to use any amount of footage with was treat as some evil action .'The fact of the matter is that we've been here constantly. We've been betraying peoples expectations, in a good way, for a long time.'
3DS: 2449-4649-4995Actually let's play have no been determined to be fair use or not in court. There is no precedent on it. The fact that none of the big publishers actually tried to push through the courts a case in the early days of them when they were all still fairly against them shows that even their legal departments had reservations on trying to exert copyright. Your only creating this thread because your a die hard Nintendo fan who desperately wants to defend Nintendo's blatantly over their illegal practice on how it treats youtube in general not just let's plays.demesjos2 posted...Actually let's play have no been determined to be fair use or not in court. There is no precedent on it. The fact that none of the big publishers actually tried to push through the courts a case in the early days of them when they were all still fairly against them shows that even their legal departments had reservations on trying to exert copyright. Your only creating this thread because your a die hard Nintendo fan who desperately wants to defend Nintendo's blatantly over their illegal practice on how it treats youtube in general not just let's plays.
Or it wasn't worth the money, time and energy to go after some random people on the internet posting a few videos. On the flip side of that, no let's player, even ones who have a ton of cash, have ever taken a gaming company/publisher to court when their videos get striked or taken down. In fact, when asked to remove it, they remove it, just as Pew did.
I think lets players fear that court room more than businesses do, given they always comply and NEVER try to take anyone to court for their "fair use work". I'm not even defending Nintendo, but they are the best example probably. There are entire channels that won't cover Nintendo because Nintendo won't let them use their videos. Why won't those channels threaten court? Why do so many Nintendo focused channels go through Nintendo's process instead of just doing their own thing? Many of the channels that cover Nintendo games, such as Farfromsubtle, realize the video will be claimed the moment its posted but cover them anyways because they get Patreon money so they are still making money doing it. They won't go after Nintendo or go to court or do anything even remotely close to that. It's because let's players have a zero interest in stepping into a court room. Wayyyyyyyyy too much risk. Even big top dog lets players that have millions of dollars won't touch court.
So, yeah.PSN - Exzander - Steam - Exzander - Friend Code (Switch) - SW-2315-9276-2710This whole tooic highlights just why cooyright laws need to be changed. They're too ambiguous and favor copyright holders far too much. One guy in here is nitpicking about how much and what footage can be used for a review, down to soecicic relevant scenes. When someone thinks a reviewer needs to fret over editing frame by frame, scene by scene so carefully just to conform to a heavyhanded copyright holder then we know it is too far.
God forbid a screenshot be used of Marii jumping if that wasn't specifically discussed. No, that's insane. Enough is enough. Unless someone is proven to be significantly negatively impacting your sales in a way they clearly shouldn't be then you have no say. Fair use needs to be strengthened and exoanded.Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.arvilino posted...Lucario39 posted...
As far as actual fairness goes, the videos should really only be a problem if they impact sales in a negative way. I don't know about the rest of you, but there are a number of games I've bought directly because of LPs I've seen, games that I wouldn't have given a second glance at otherwise, and none that an LP talked me out of buying
It's not the videos that are the problem it's the monetisation of them. Who has the rights to claim revenue on the videos.
I mean it's fine to be wary of corporations but consider that despite being a guy area that's actually looking like it leans to the corporations rights. A 70-30 or 60-40 split on the youtubers favour for permission to use any amount of footage with was treat as some evil action .
The thing is, so long as they're helping sales, LPs also function as giant ads for the games. Asking someone to pay you to advertise your product is absurd on the face of it. Letting LPers make some money by making shows with their games but getting advertising they don't have to pay for seems like a pretty fair trade-off to me.
SSjYagami posted...This whole topic highlights just why copyright laws need to be changed. They're too ambiguous and favor copyright holders far too much. One guy in here is nitpicking about how much and what footage can be used for a review, down to specific relevant scenes. When someone thinks a reviewer needs to fret over editing frame by frame, scene by scene so carefully just to conform to a heavyhanded copyright holder then we know it is too far.
God forbid a screenshot be used of Mario jumping if that wasn't specifically discussed. No, that's insane. Enough is enough. Unless someone is proven to be significantly negatively impacting your sales in a way they clearly shouldn't be then you have no say. Fair use needs to be strengthened and expanded.
I agree, though it'd be pretty difficult to do given how many pockets businesses have their hands in, especially in regards to lawmakers.Fighting Gym Leader of the MGM League (6v6 Singles) FC:0774-4449-5042Lucario39 posted...arvilino posted...
Lucario39 posted...
As far as actual fairness goes, the videos should really only be a problem if they impact sales in a negative way. I don't know about the rest of you, but there are a number of games I've bought directly because of LPs I've seen, games that I wouldn't have given a second glance at otherwise, and none that an LP talked me out of buying
It's not the videos that are the problem it's the monetisation of them. Who has the rights to claim revenue on the videos.
I mean it's fine to be wary of corporations but consider that despite being a guy area that's actually looking like it leans to the corporations rights. A 70-30 or 60-40 split on the youtubers favour for permission to use any amount of footage with was treat as some evil action .
The thing is, so long as they're helping sales, LPs also function as giant ads for the games. Asking someone to pay you to advertise your product is absurd on the face of it. Letting LPers make some money by making shows with their games but getting advertising they don't have to pay for seems like a pretty fair trade-off to me.
It's not a trade if LP's are stealing the work without permission. That very well might be a fair trade IF the company says let's play ball and work together. The LPer needs to have the right to use the work in the first place. Whether or not it's free advertisement or not is entirely irrelevant. If I'm a photographer and take pictures and those pictures are my copyright, and someone else takes them and uses them in their business without my permission, despite it being "free advertising" for me, I can sue him or force him to take them down. He used them without my permission.
Profit, advertising, negatively or positively effecting sales - all of this is pointless. It comes down to whether or not they had the right to use the work in the first place.PSN - Exzander - Steam - Exzander - Friend Code (Switch) - SW-2315-9276-2710Mmaguy posted...It's not a trade if LP's are stealing the work without permission. That very well might be a fair trade IF the company says let's play ball and work together. The LPer needs to have the right to use the work in the first place. Whether or not it's free advertisement or not is entirely irrelevant. If I'm a photographer and take pictures and those pictures are my copyright, and someone else takes them and uses them in their business without my permission, despite it being "free advertising" for me, I can sue him or force him to take them down. He used them without my permission.
Profit, advertising, negatively or positively effecting sales - all of this is pointless. It comes down to whether or not they had the right to use the work in the first place.
...Which is why I prefaced my statement with "as far as actual fairness goes", not "according to the law".
And if them using your hypothetical pictures helped get you both some good attention and got you both making some more money, are you really about to be so petty about money and ownership that you'd attack someone who helped you just because you didn't ask them or agree to it, even though you'd be worse off if they hadn't?Fighting Gym Leader of the MGM League (6v6 Singles) FC:0774-4449-5042Karmic Dragon2003 posted...https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/907025967813668865
Wonder if our lawyer friend will make a return and share some knowledge on this subject.
Suddenly Nintendo's 50/50 program doesn't seem all that bad.
I'm surprised you can actually talk with that much of Nintendo in your mouthSomebody at Nintendo needs to apologize for making New Super Mario Bros. 2Mmaguy posted...Lucario39 posted...
arvilino posted...
Lucario39 posted...
As far as actual fairness goes, the videos should really only be a problem if they impact sales in a negative way. I don't know about the rest of you, but there are a number of games I've bought directly because of LPs I've seen, games that I wouldn't have given a second glance at otherwise, and none that an LP talked me out of buying
It's not the videos that are the problem it's the monetisation of them. Who has the rights to claim revenue on the videos.
I mean it's fine to be wary of corporations but consider that despite being a guy area that's actually looking like it leans to the corporations rights. A 70-30 or 60-40 split on the youtubers favour for permission to use any amount of footage with was treat as some evil action .
The thing is, so long as they're helping sales, LPs also function as giant ads for the games. Asking someone to pay you to advertise your product is absurd on the face of it. Letting LPers make some money by making shows with their games but getting advertising they don't have to pay for seems like a pretty fair trade-off to me.
It's not a trade if LP's are stealing the work without permission. That very well might be a fair trade IF the company says let's play ball and work together. The LPer needs to have the right to use the work in the first place. Whether or not it's free advertisement or not is entirely irrelevant. If I'm a photographer and take pictures and those pictures are my copyright, and someone else takes them and uses them in their business without my permission, despite it being "free advertising" for me, I can sue him or force him to take them down. He used them without my permission.
Profit, advertising, negatively or positively effecting sales - all of this is pointless. It comes down to whether or not they had the right to use the work in the first place.
This guy gets it.arvilino posted...yahya_no_1 posted...
Lets play maybe, REVIEWS!!!, they are protected as fair use.
Something people at Nintendo are initially ignoring.
You can still make a review that still has infringing gameplay footage. If you're rambling on about a certain aspect of the game and the video footage continues past the point that you demonstrated and is displaying an unrelated part of the game you can't really say that part of the footage was necessary for the purpose of the review.
Obviously the viewers may find it more entertaining and its a positive draw if there's more gameplay footage than you need to demonstrate the points of the review, but at that point the copyright holders rights are going to come into play.
Yah I agree if they are talking about things on the game but showing different things happening gameplay wise, I can see someone like nintendo who can have rights to taking it downPSN:yahyano1Mmaguy posted...Even big top dog lets players that have millions of dollars won't touch court.
So, yeah.
I'd imagine a big part of that is that even the biggest LPers don't have pockets as deep as corporations. Fighting a protracted legal battle with someone like Nintendo, EA, or Activision could realistically ruin them if the case drags on long enough.demesjos2 posted...Your only creating this thread because your a die hard Nintendo fan who desperately wants to defend Nintendo's blatantly over their illegal practice on how it treats youtube in general not just let's plays.
You're*CreviceCretin - Mario games are for little kids grow up and kill something.
^ 213 people agree that it's ignorance at its finest.- Boards
- Nintendo Switch
- Nintendo was right all along. Let's Plays aren't protected by fair use.
No comments:
Post a Comment