Jimquisition: Copyright War

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

erttheking:
You know, I can't help but wonder exactly what's going through the heads of these people. Have they ever considered that maybe, for five minutes, they should stop acting so, you know, EVIL!?

IMO I feel they are so disconnected from the community (and reality) that they feel that WE are the evil ones who need to be stopped.
Remember nobody does something just to be a dick, they are almost always convinced that they're doing the right thing. Look at Hitler.

Grabehn:
I've never understood if it's just one dumb guy calling the shots on whatever video that has any relation to their content, no matter how minimal it might be, or just a bot launching infringement notices everywhere.

PS: Hope this is enough to not count it as "low content" Escapist :)

From what I've heard once a video gets flagged by someone with a slight degree of influence a video gets removed without actually looking into the matter. It saves time and thus money. I am guessing employees of the publishers who make sure that their IP is protected do much the same. If they find a video containing their IP posted by someone else than their own company they flag it. Google who doesn't look through it removes it. I can't confirm this, but I think this is how it happens.

Also your post does not come under low content posting because it contributes to the discussion. If you had written the same amount of words not really saying anything then you might have received one, but maybe not. An advice I want you to remember is that if you're ever in doubt if you're posting a low content post do NOT mention the low content rule. That shows you are fully aware of it being a rule yet you still do not respect it and that usually ends up in a low content warning regardless of the extra word count.

OT: I've been thinking of my own copyright law rant for a long time now because there are quite a few great examples of how companies really screw over themselves the way things are now. I feel like the copyright laws are in place to protect the jobs of lawyers rather than anyone else. I've seen publishers suffer from how the copyright have boxed them in.

Two days later, Jim disappeared with only a fire flow, a golden ring, and a note saying "hadouken" and 'who's afraid now?' left on his pillow.

That "Fuck off" at the end was pretty powerful, Jim.

Callate:
Given that both Sony and Microsoft have been at great pains to highlight the streaming/recording/media sharing features of their brand spanking new consoles, one would think they might take a moment to knock on a few doors and make a few phone calls to tell publishers to stop pissing in the communal watering hole.

But I guess that's probably excessively optimistic.

Hey Google? Now would be a good time to not be evil.

Google:"B-but! But! We're not evil! Our motto says so!"

One thing I've noticed is that anyone who says something like that are pretty much always the most evil, sadistic, dicks this side of Hell. I remember back in the day (damn, I feel so old saying that) when Youtube was convenient, functional, and easy to look at, and more importantly didn't immediately bend over backwards to every idiot who screamed COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT!!! Then Google bought it and has been piling more and more crap on it ever since. The reason Youtube was so popular was because it was a respectable website where a person could upload pretty much anything they wanted, and Google seems to have missed this point.

People just need to learn to adapt. Switch to Dailymotion or even Youku. Let's see if they can get around the red tape in China.

The problem here is that the publishers want to have their cake and eat it too (never quite understood that figure of speech, but whatever). They don't mind the free publicity. Well, most of them don't, a few are just retarded and don't understand what's going on around them (*cough* Nintendo *cough*). For the most part, they want this to keep going on, but they want to exert control over it.

Yes, free publicity is great, but why should it be free? First thought is - people are earning money from our games? Why aren't we getting a cut? Next thought is - why risk negative publicity? Just as Youtubers can get people to flock to otherwise obscure titles and propel them to cult status, so can they demolish a game and undermine its sales. And publishers don't want to take the risk.

They want to control who makes content for their games, and through that control to have leverage on the people making the content to ensure nothing negative is said. And they want those people to do it for free, or even to pay for the privilege.

Don't get me wrong, they're fucking idiots. Even if they got what they wanted, they will have destroyed the credibility of the channels that they come to control. And they won't get what they want, as people will either move to other hosting sites or simply avoid games they know they can't make a living off.

This is a classic case of a dying beast destroying anything nearby while in its final death throes, thrashing wildly in blind fear, desperately trying to hang onto life. With increasing social connectivity and ease to get a game out to the masses by the devs themselves, publishers are become less and less needed and they know it. Rather than adapt and try to use what is, essentially, free adverts for their products they have become increasingly paranoid and iron fisted and only hurting themselves more in the process.

The games industry will not crash, not completely anyway, as there are still indie games and a few companies that are smart enough to change with the times. However its these big monolithic companies run by dinosaurs who will die off; who either can't or won't change and continue to try to force their old methods on an evolving industry...they are the ones who are in trouble and really only have themselves to blame.

Best ending to a JQ I've seen so far, way to go mister Stirling.
I think he has a point too, I can see why publishers are getting anxious when they're being outmanouvered left and right. they're becoming irrelevant and they're squeezing down on whatever they can hold on to, but all it's going to do is blow up in their faces.

so shots fired huh jim? i hope people have your back because it will probably be the only thing that saves you in the end imo

I clapped. I really did, I have never clapped at anything coming off the t.v or through my computer. But I did for this.

So which companies beside Nintendo capcom and sega are removing youtube videos? Would be nice to know if I ever start making lets plays.

This is going to create tons and tons of negative publicity, since every youtube personality is going to attack the companies who removed there videos, great job publishers of the world.

soon the people will overthrow these publisher pigs and start a video game revolution and you jim will be lenin.

I wonder what power we can use, to undermine what these companies think they can get away with. Right now, youtube is far too important for the content creators I tend to frequent for their livelihoods.

I'm also wondering why google is afraid too... Maybe afraid of their lawyers phoning it in, so they get to keep their jobs. But that's just a theory, even if a bit deranged I think.

This really really is just stupid. Publishers always shat where they ate but this feels like they are dugging uranium in their bed chamber.

JoJo:
Maybe it's time for an alternative to YouTube, since the site seems to be becoming rapidly taken over by corporations and Google +. Anyone got any suggestions for a viable alternative video site?

Blip.tv is a very old and huge alternative that seems to have been forgotten. It was twitch before twitch even existed.

Costia:
This is a bad thing that can lead to a good thing.
I do want that good youtubers that create original content will be free to do so, but this shouldn't give a free pass for those who just stream entire games without adding anything of their own.
Maybe this mess will encourage the publishers, google and content creators to put some effort and solve this problem. So in the future no one will have to be afraid of random take down notices. Meaning that if you create something original - your video stays up no matter what, but if you post a "silent movie" of you just playing the game it gets taken down.
I think that it's the randomness and the unfairness that is the main problem here and not google's ability to take down gameplay videos itself.

No, it can not lead to a good thing. there is nothing wrong with people streaming the entire game. you should not be forced to tiptoe around publisher utter stupidity just because they have enough money to buy laws only they like. you get takedown notices for written reviews, and legally you MUST shut down the review and spend hundreds of dollars to prove that it wasnt copyright inflingement before you can show it again, because copyright law works backwards. everyone is guilty until proven otherwise.
If creating something original would mean the video stays up no matter what you would need to recode the whole Youtube system AND change copyright law. you know, something that should ahve been done decades ago.

Grabehn:
I've never understood if it's just one dumb guy calling the shots on whatever video that has any relation to their content, no matter how minimal it might be, or just a bot launching infringement notices everywhere.

PS: Hope this is enough to not count it as "low content" Escapist :)

Its a bot. And youtube removing videos is a bot too. There is actually no human involvement for removal of your videos. Youtube removes ALL claims no matter true or false. And the claim bot can be configured to do anything really.

Scorpid:
I'd like to know what people are celebrating the attempted muzzling of YouTubers? Also if YouTube does continue to allow this, isn't the internet far larger then YouTube, won't the contributers just migrate to another service like DailyMotion or somethin?

see the problem isnt so much youtube as publishers ability to legally block ANY content it wants. If enough people migrate to, say, Dailymontion, thats the one thats going to get all the notices then.

Desert Punk:

Three strikes on both sides, if you infringe copyright three times your youtube account is disabled. However if a company or one of their representatives makes a false copyright claim three times they lose the ability to make claims for a year at the least.

That wont happen. you know why? its too logical!

Andy Shandy:

And christ, if you hate the guy that much that you want to affect his livelihood, there is a simpler option, you could just not watch his videos

Actually there are browser plugins that hide his videos. I have modified it to hide couple youtubes i dislike and i havent seen their videos show up anywhere. you wont have to see him and others cna see it if they want to, works for both sides imo.

shadowstriker86:
Guys, can we PLEASE get Jim into the oval office or something? Already a proven leader with millions of loyal viewers ready to vote him in, what's the holdup?

Not sure about age requirements in US, but here we have restriction that people younger than i think 30 cannot go to our equivalent of oval office. 45 years for president. I believe Jim is younger (if i remember correctly from dismal jester)

UberPubert:

Best not to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity. The fact of the matter is that while there's some very tech savvy people who do the work, they're being told to do it by lawyers, who have been given orders by CEO's, who are just parroting the whims of stockholders. Said stockholders have no qualifications for running a business other than having loads of money, and chances are they're like the average person: Still thinking the internet is just for checking their Facebook and ordering dragon dildos. I seriously doubt they have any idea what the LP community is like.

On the contrary, always atribute malice unless stupidity is proven. If you atribute malice as stupidity due to lack of knowledge you may end up dead. If you atribute stupidity as malice at worst you will punish a stupid person for sdoing stupid things.
As for the rest of your comments, it is tech savy peoples responsibility to show the rest what will come of it. because if they jtu go along with it they will get blamed for it anyway.

JoJo:

I don't necessarily mean one not owned by a corporation of some sorts, but rather not one which freely gives other corporations the right to remove any content they judge to be infringing without any sort of oversight as Google does now.

It owuld have to be hosted in a country that hasnt signed international law help treaties though. becuase google is legally forced to do what thier doing you know. they just automated the process to the level of easily abusable.

Shadow-Phoenix:
Great video as always Jim.

After seeing most of the conversations going on in this thread I've now learned two things:

1)We should love and adore every LP'er out there (even Pew it appears).

2)We should hate,spite and scorn every publisher on Youtube because it's not their property apparently.

I can't seem to remember what life was like before LP'ers came along and what those LP'ers used to work as for a living but I'm sure we'll never find out because who needs a real job when you can sit home and play vidya games all day for Youtube.

actors and comedians were around for thousands of years, it just moved to videogames as well with LPs. nothing really "new" here to begin with.
And no, publisher does NOT and should NOT own my videos.

Entitled:
Jim sounds about righ this time, but with his earlier video about which cases of piracy are and aren't "theft", he is also absolutely part of the problem.
<...>
Some copyright monopoly is needed to sustain basic industry activities, but it shouldn't be EVER be called "intellectual property".

JIm is consistent, rewatch his videos.
Copyright monopoly is not needed, but could be acceptable if it was reasonable (<15 years term, working first sale doctrine, fair use, derivative works, ect).

Neronium:

Well there is Game Anyone, a site entirely dedicated to uploading LPs and Video Game Walkthroughs and has been around since 2006. We use our own video codecs, support 60 frames per second on videos (YouTube only does 30 at max), and it's a rather pleasant site to say the least. ^.^

I looked at this. Selection seems to be ok (not as big as youtube but as long as i can find what i need im fine). the listing is... confusing. everything is a walktrough. how do i know if its a lets play or its a silent walktrough?
the quality also does not seem to be good. i picked a 2009 game uploaded in 2011 and it was running in something that looked like 260p youtube quality. and it also had a link to youtube in the corner maknig me wonder if it wasnt just a stream from youtube video to begin with. Id love to have an alternative site and use it, but so far it does not seem up to par. unless im being an idiot and thats likely.

Scrumpmonkey:
The thing that really Gauls me is that companies like Nintendo are claiming ANY footage from their games is their property. (This also ignores the basic principles of gaming be an interactive medium but that is a separate discussion) In fact people are allowed, expressly allowed, to use footage from games, films, moives etc. etc. under UK law, EU law and especially the US idea of 'fair use'.

The reaoson companies like nintendo are claiming that is because copyright law claims that. yes, copyright law contradicts others.

Entitled:

If you own a car, you are not obliged to share bits of it with others, not even if they are unintrusive and not costing you any harm so it is "Fair Use".

If you own a car you are allowed to share it with others without getting special permissions from car manufacturer.

Property is a moral right by default, and it's limitations need special, extra-imortant justifications, such as even bigger public benefits.

no. Property is a legal right.

Publishers use the same logic to argue why every sound bite, every character design, every paragraph, and every plot that they come up with, needs to be absolutely controlled by them by default, unless there is a special, extra-imortant justification such as the public's need for basic communication through Fair Use or Public Domain.

Using flawed logic to excuse flawed logic is still flawed logic.

They look at a video, and ask "It is mine. What could justify giving it away to the public?" Instead of "This is the public's communication. How can I justify asking for a necessary copyright control over it?"

More like "It is their video. How can i control it?"

Altorin:

yeah, except that it doesn't really NEED *ALL* of Youtube's server capabilities. Youtube is just utterly glutted with trash that noone watches. Ever. Stuff people just upload for themselves or whatever. Last statistic I heard on it, 48 hours of footage was uploaded to youtube every hour. So really, it's impossible for less then 50 people working non-stop to watch it all, and I imagine 90% of it is total trollop horseshit.

Not to mention, a few big names move house, that will benefit the third party immensely, allowing them to grow at the expense of Youtube.

Youtube has thousands of people watching it all the time, millions even. so its very much possible.
Heck, i created a game series of a 15 year old games expansion pack that was an experiment and i expected noone to see it. the videos got over 20 views. i think even more now.

gyroscopeboy:
I know it's not true for many other people, but when I watch a full Let's PLay, I then DON'T buy the game. It's why i've only bought one game this entire year, and that was GTA V. I guess those count as lost sales?

No. they dont. Would you buy a game if you could not watch a lets play? Would you buy a game if noont ever shown you what its about? if you like buying cats in a bag then you could consider it a lost sale.

Someonetookmyname:
Could somebody do me the favor of explainig what the difference between a publisher and a gamecompany, like Bethesda, is? Where is the line drawn? What does the publisher do?

Gamecompany can be both publisher and developer. Publishers publish stuff. Developers are the ones actually making them. Sometimes, as for example Bethesda game studios, it is both a developer and a publisher. There are developers that self-publish (mojang for example).

zumbledum:
if this means less talentles cretins making bank by screaming like a demented 12 year old girls, well im all for it. but then if they pout a law infront of me that would euthanise these people and all their fans id sign it as my good deed to the gene pool

Lets ban music if it means we get rid of justin bieber.

immortalfrieza:

Google:"B-but! But! We're not evil! Our motto says so!"

See, their motto "dont be evil" is about telling us not to be evil. they dont want us to overshoot them at being evil.

Jandau:
The problem here is that the publishers want to have their cake and eat it too (never quite understood that figure of speech, but whatever).

Its sort of a paradox that will work with any food. If you have a cake you havent eaten it yet. If you eat it you no longer have the cake (you ate it). yet the companies want to both have it and have eaten it. they want so much that is not possible.

They must just love shooting themselves in the foot, this industry has so alienated its customers that without a chance to preview or sample the things they're selling its just not worth the gamble anymore, so of course they are trying stop people from gaining access to preview material.

The only ones they can hurt are they themselves, while annoying the hell out of their customers and thus giving even more reason to just stick to the Indie's, way to go you fucking idiots.

Thank god for Jim!!! You tell them where they can stick it! Let them dig their own graves.

EDIT:

Strazdas:

Lets ban music if it means we get rid of justin bieber.

Careful now, that is awfully tempting. XD

That last speech was quite possibly my all-time favorite Jimquisition moment. Mainly because it's absolutely correct, pulbishers aren't needed for well.....publicity anymore. YouTube and similar things do the job just as good.

Off-topic: If I may add that final "So fuck off" is instant GIF material.

Jimothy Sterling:
Copyright War

In this extra Jimquisition episode, Jim tackles the spark of the Copyright War, as YouTube allows publishers to cut through its videos like a legal reaper, claiming all sorts of content and causing a ton of trouble.

Watch Video

I sincerely hope you get away with this one, Jim. All they have to do is send an email to your paymasters at The Escapist. "No Halo 5 coverage if you don't fire Jim Sterling." Or GTA 6 or Saints Row 4 or 5 or whatever the hell number we're on by now. I could see EA having the clout to pull it off all by themselves. But since they're pretending they give a shit about their image suddenly, they'll probably just encourage their fellows to pool their resources and take you down. It's not like it would cost them anything. All they have to do is threaten to deny the Escapist access, and your dream job goes up in smoke. The poetry, the industry commentary, all of it. Maybe they'll still let you do the podcast if their tentacles don't reach that far yet. But you're not immune to under-the-table dealings. You won't even see it coming. It's not like your editor's going to tell you, "Oh, hey, the video game companies you called fuckers decided they're finally sick of you. What do you want me to do?" They'll just announce a "site redesign" or some bullshit and you and whoever else has been giving them trouble will discover that your passwords no longer work.

They don't have to keep you quiet. All they have to do is pull the plug on your microphone.

Strazdas:
On the contrary, always atribute malice unless stupidity is proven. If you atribute malice as stupidity due to lack of knowledge you may end up dead. If you atribute stupidity as malice at worst you will punish a stupid person for sdoing stupid things.
As for the rest of your comments, it is tech savy peoples responsibility to show the rest what will come of it. because if they jtu go along with it they will get blamed for it anyway.

I'm confused; you opened your very own post by saying that the decision was stupid, why would you then go on to explain that we should assume it's evil? If we can reasonably figure out that the decision being made is not actually to their benefit then surely we can also just as well assume the decision is in fact due to ignorance on their part, and I'm of the mind that charging someone with crime and intent when we have every reason to believe it was an accident is wrong.

The employees responsible for building the bots are literally just doing their jobs, they have no responsibility beyond that. If someone left (or was fired for not complying), another would take their place, and we'd be right back where we started, and there'd be no breaking of the cycle because what they're doing isn't at all illegal and unless they had a vested interest in the LP community they'd be ignorant of the matter and I doubt anyone could blame them for not caring. In fact, we already see they're not in this thread: Almost everyone here is hating on the publishers, including Jim.

Altorin:
yeah, except that it doesn't really NEED *ALL* of Youtube's server capabilities. Youtube is just utterly glutted with trash that noone watches. Ever. Stuff people just upload for themselves or whatever. Last statistic I heard on it, 48 hours of footage was uploaded to youtube every hour. So really, it's impossible for less then 50 people working non-stop to watch it all, and I imagine 90% of it is total trollop horseshit.

Not to mention, a few big names move house, that will benefit the third party immensely, allowing them to grow at the expense of Youtube.

What would be the point of moving to a different website if it didn't allow for all the people posting "trollop horseshit", and the kind of audience that watches it, though? The entire point of asking for an alternative to youtube is so that random people can still post their own material at whim and garner a larger, more inclusive Let's Play community that everyone has access to and can watch. Otherwise? The largest content creators (who undoubtedly would be unable to agree on a single website) would be divided, their audiences split and tired due to the lack of convenience, and everyone would lose.

Jandau:
The problem here is that the publishers want to have their cake and eat it too (never quite understood that figure of speech, but whatever)

It basically means that they want to consume their cake, but at the same time they want to physically have it in front of them.

Fuck off, indeed, Jim.
I really hope that there'll be a youtube alternative soon. (Wasn't the piratebay working on something like that?)

ash12181987:
Do we happen to have a list of the publishers who are asking to have their games footage removed?

Here's a more positive list, though not complete, of developers who do allow LPS: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1egayn/lets_build_a_list_of_game_studios_that_allow/

This is kind of silly. Then again most of the developers that do this such as activision capcom and sega, even nintendo to some degree right now are in serious stagnation mode relying on a handful of reiterated titles. I wonder if the two are somehow related. Maybe this could turn into a good thing though if more interesting titles get the lime light instead.

Two things Jim my man.

One, you've been losing a lot of weight. I've noticed. Looking good man.

Second. You are a Hundred Percent right. Game Publishers are taking this too far and are in fact losing fans over it. This bull needs a stop as soon as possible.

This is a reality, the people you think are making money off of you Game Publishers, they are making money for you. Stop being dumb. We already know you are, this isn't helping.

erttheking:

Jandau:
The problem here is that the publishers want to have their cake and eat it too (never quite understood that figure of speech, but whatever)

It basically means that they want to consume their cake, but at the same time they want to physically have it in front of them.

Ah, so having the cake refers to still possessing it after they have consumed it? That makes sense, thank you :)

Vausch:

Imp Emissary:
Indeed. Thank God for you, Jim. =w= b

Also, side question;

Who is happy about this!? Besides publishers, of course

I guess if you don't like a specific youtube personality, you could be happy that they are getting the screws put to them, but I don't see one guy/gal you don't like getting burned being worth all the others you may like/don't hate also getting burned.

But rejoicing it as a whole? WHY!?

P.S. You really don't need them, Jim!
You have all of us. ;3

Pewdiepie. Within 5 comments on the first break of this news on Escapist, someone mentioned "If this gets rid of Pewdiepie then I'm all for it".

I think it's the most ridiculous that these publishers will sue for lets plays of games that are impossible to get any more. Like, you literally cannot get the game new, even digitally. But they will still sue.

They don't want to compete with themselves. If no one can remember their past glories (or less-than-total failures) then the present failures have a much lower bar to be measured against.

Hey, welcome to the Copyright is Evil party. You're quite late, but hey, better late than never! If anyone wants to know more about what's going on, check out these guys, they do a great job of at least keeping you informed of what is going on on that front (but be warned, they're definitely opinionated, so you might not always agree with everything posted there): http://www.techdirt.com/

The problem with copyright, dmca, youtube (or any site really), etc is the difficulty in proving when something is fair use.

Reviews, for example, are going to be fair use. Lets plays more than likely count too if the player is commenting, etc.

Good luck fighting that stuff though, you'll need it.

Vausch:

Pewdiepie. Within 5 comments on the first break of this news on Escapist, someone mentioned "If this gets rid of Pewdiepie then I'm all for it".

There's only one correct response to this:
Jim Sterling mentioned that Pewdiepie is getting exclusives from some companies who block everyone else, while the only video I know of which was specifically targeted by a person rather than through automated bots, was TotalBiscuit's review of Garry's Incident.

Should there be a truly massive crackdown on almost all Let's Players, who do you think will be shut and who will be allowed to continue (and there will be people who are allowed to continue): The shameless sellouts, or the critical and pro-consumer reviewers?

This is funny and sad, because its coming from Google, a company that was once small and enjoyed the benefits as such. The very day Google purchased Youtube, though I could see something like this eventually going down. Google have become the faceless man that they once rallied against. Hell, the very creation of Youtube was to get away from the established chains placed on and largely limiting video content. Now, Youtube is just another owned tube thing online, as the powers that be try to strangle/shackle the internet.

For publishers to begrudge certain gamers/reviewers etc from a few dollars from fans is just plain sad. I think its time for many who upload vids out there to close their Youtube accounts and set up shop elsewhere. Twitch, Ustream, Vimeo etc are all very useable and valid options. Youtube's loss is some other sites gain.

As for publishers, I think that what we need next is an annual Anti-Publisher Day. Its plain to see that as the industry shuns them and their bankrupt creativity more, only they lose in the end. Nothing wrong with their games as such, just the crappy corporate attitudes that spoil things for their customers.

Nintendo, Sega, Activision and Capcom, this is no way to treat those who fill your coffers.

How can you say you didn't need publishers to make any of this episode, that's entirely about publishers?

shadowstriker86:
Guys, can we PLEASE get Jim into the oval office or something? Already a proven leader with millions of loyal viewers ready to vote him in, what's the holdup?

Strazdas:
Not sure about age requirements in US, but here we have restriction that people younger than i think 30 cannot go to our equivalent of oval office. 45 years for president. I believe Jim is younger (if i remember correctly from dismal jester)

just looked it up right now, age req. is 35. That sucks. Do they just put 35 because it's at an age where they "think" (and i use the word very lightly) people are less inclined to disagree with sponsers?

Awesome show, Jim. More people need to be watching your videos to see the shit that publishers are trying to pull here.

Jandau:

erttheking:

Jandau:
The problem here is that the publishers want to have their cake and eat it too (never quite understood that figure of speech, but whatever)

It basically means that they want to consume their cake, but at the same time they want to physically have it in front of them.

Ah, so having the cake refers to still possessing it after they have consumed it? That makes sense, thank you :)

That saying would make a lot more sense if it was reversed... "They want to eat their cake, and have it too." which to my mind is much more clear. I wonder if some idiot messed it up in the retelling many many years ago, and it just stuck the way the idiot retold it.

This is why I like FTL the developer even put it on their site, upload monatize whatever with our game footage just put it out there for people to see. No need to contact them it is in the FAQ on the main page. Indies will keep growing stronger with this kind of consumer positive policy.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here