Jimquisition: Copyright War

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

This is why we need games to be defined as art. A paint company can not claim ownership of a painting that someone makes with their paints. The same should apply to games, as the video content created by a user was created by that user, and not the company that merely provided the tools and materials to create that video.

Funny thing is I think that most of the videos are for profit thus need copy right permission, when you are for profit you have to get the license IMO. Of course it dose not not help there is not a system in place where you sign up post your stuff and they get a cut of any ad rev.And no I do not think opinion driven media can claim fair use fact driven yes opinion driven no not under our glorious copy right masters these days.

Why any government would extend the same broadcast and re-broadcast protections to video game manufacturers that it also extends to live performance events (sports, theatre, concerts) or film/TV is beyond me.

Mid Boss:

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

People who hate Let's Players. They believe that they're over paid for a minimum amount of work. Though making it big is liken to winning the lottery as for every person that gets rich there's dozens working tireless who no one will ever hear about. Corporate CEOs make anywhere from 200 to 300 times more than the average worker of their own companies and typically work less than 20 hours a week. There are sports stars that make more than the president. But Let's Players are where we draw the line God damn it! My friend Mandy puts in between 3 to 6 hours a day for over a year now. She has a grand totally of 93 followers and... she could go buy a Big Mac with how much she makes in a day!

Then there's the people who worship corporations as if they are our new pantheon of gods.

I'm a small time youtuber too! Can you PM me a link to your friends channel? I like watching small youtubers :)

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?

How can YouTube be "taken over" by corporations, when it has always been a corporation, and has belonged to one of the world's biggest corporations (Google) for many years now? For it to be taken over would require it to be non-corporate in the first place.

Although I do find it difficult to be sympathetic with anybody in this whole scenario. The game publishers suck for their short-sighted iron-fist handling of this situation. The YouTube "Let's Players" suck for trying to "monetize" their videos. In fact, the YouTubers suck for simply posting stuff on YouTube in the first place, one of the biggest cesspits on the word-wide inter webs. Google sucks for being Google, in the typical way that they claim to be noble technologists supporting freedom and openness, while turning everything into an advertising delivery platform.

Even Jim sucks for pointlessly looping game footage in his videos for no apparent reason than he doesn't have anything else to show, and game footage is cheap and easy. And that same fucking loop of harpsichord music on the soundtrack every damn week...

Damn, people really are terrible, aren't they?

Signa:
This is why we need games to be defined as art.

Can you define art?

A paint company can not claim ownership of a painting that someone makes with their paints. The same should apply to games, as the video content created by a user was created by that user, and not the company that merely provided the tools and materials to create that video.

You're talking about very different things here. Defining games as "art" does not make art into a raw material like paint. In fact, defining it as art makes it much less so. Copyright was invented to protect the arts. So, I'm not sure how defining games as art somehow makes them immune from copyright claims. The fact that they are creative works is what gives them copyright protection in the first place.

As for the argument that the video content was created by the user, that's not completely true - as the user did not create the visuals, art assets or programming of the game. The user is recording the output of the game which was created by somebody else. While the user has some control over the inputs to the game, that's not the same as them creating something new. There are many other factors that go into determining authorship, and whether any particular video is deemed "fair use" under copyright law.

ZippyDSMlee:
Funny thing is I think that most of the videos are for profit thus need copy right permission, when you are for profit you have to get the license IMO.

No, that's not how it works.

Being for profit is not the only factor that determines copyright infringement. It is perfectly possible for derivative works that are non-profit to be infringing. It's also possible for derivative works that are for profit to be non-infringing.

There are four factor used in determining fair use under copyright law:

the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.

So, it's not a simple matter of "profit" or "non-profit." In fact, if it were that simple, that would have terribly detrimental effects. Take TV comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, for example. SNL exists to make a profit, yet frequently parodies and satirises pop culture, including copyrighted material. If the simple fact that SNL exists for profit required them to license any material that they parody, they would basically be shut down, because very few of the publishers or artists being parodied would grant them a license to the material, because they don't want to be made fun of. This is an essential Freedom of Speech issue.

This is a pretty good resource for learning more about this quagmire:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

Publishers really need to wrap their heads around the fact that having Let's Plays be freely available online serves to increase their sales by giving them free publicity. In today's world, it's all word-of-mouth that makes sales.

As someone who only just discovered Northernlion due to his FANTASTIC Crusader Kings 2 playthroughs, and as a consequence also found Arumba and Mathas, I am squeeing that he got a mention in this video. cuz I'm petty like that.

And while I would be the first person to pop a champagne bottle if the TotalBiscuit or Pewdiepie ended up homeless and having to suck off heroine addicts to afford a single loaf of bread to live off, at the end of the day I need to stand by freedom of speech over personal hatred.

Even when it's a dumbass like Gabe from Penny Arcade making blatant transphobic dribbling, I need to stand by my convictions that it's the personal right of anyone to say/do/think whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone or infringing on anyone else to enjoy the same freedom. I might not agree with what they're saying or producing, but as far as I'm concerned, the instant you say "you can't say that" YOU are the bad guy who needs to be fought against. From the petty politically correct pussy to the giant evil greedy conglomerate, fuck y'all, and fuck the apathetic jerks who could be helping but are too self serving to even try like Youtube for allowing them to get away with it.

(side note: still think it's funny how Jim can condemn the idea of anthropomorphizing an evil company when it's the games industry, but when people do the same to criticize the escapist he's the first to say "eeeeeeeh, it's populated by peeeeople, it's not just some faceless eeeeevil, I knoooow the people making these decisions personallllllyyyyy, so you can't call them a facelessss eeeeeviiiil." Top notch job at avoiding looking like a hypocrite, Jim.)

Desert Punk:
I think the best option would be to severely punish copyright holders who flag things falsely, make them hire people to troll through videos for copyrighted content.

I think that's in the realm of "be careful what you wish for" because that could seriously backfire. Copyright infringement doesn't just go one way. It's not always the big companies reporting infringement by smaller companies or individuals.

Often individuals, or small businesses, have their copyright infringed by larger companies. This is especially common with photographers, who are often self-employed or have very small businesses, but have their photographs used without permission by larger companies. These large companies have a lot more money and lawyers. So, if what you propose were to pass, it's highly likely that an authentic copyright claim by an individual photographer would get punished as a "false claim" by the courts, simply because the larger company has the legal firepower and resources to defend their actions.

So, in that case, the actual victim would be the one who is punished.

Aardvaarkman:

JoJo:
I think the best option would be to severely punish copyright holders who flag things falsely, make them hire people to troll through videos for copyrighted content.

I think that's in the realm of "be careful what you wish for" because that could seriously backfire. Copyright infringement doesn't just go one way. It's not always the big companies reporting infringement by smaller companies or individuals.

Often individuals, or small businesses, have their copyright infringed by larger companies. This is especially common with photographers, who are often self-employed or have very small businesses, but have their photographs used without permission by larger companies. These large companies have a lot more money and lawyers. So, if what you propose were to pass, it's highly likely that an authentic copyright claim by an individual photographer would get punished as a "false claim" by the courts, simply because the larger company has the legal firepower and resources to defend their actions.

So, in that case, the actual victim would be the one who is punished.

Excuse me? You must have quoted the wrong person, I never said that...

That sound you hear is the sound of the people who own and run Blip doing Snow angels in money. No really, the worse YT gets the more people will just move to things like Blip.

JoJo:
Excuse me? You must have quoted the wrong person, I never said that...

Sorry, I just fixed that. It's The Escapist's weird forum software, where it keeps a buffer of previously-quoted text in the text-entry field. So in trimming the quotes, the wrong author was attributed, instead of Desert Punk who wrote that.

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 :)

The actual original version was "eat your cake and have it." which makes it clearer. Just like "I couldn't care less" has morphed into "I could care less" which implies that you actually DO care, where as the first implies your caring=0.

Desert Punk:

Jandau:

erttheking:

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.

Pretty much

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?

I would imagine that Jim not being born in the United States would be a significant holdup.

Aardvaarkman:

Signa:
This is why we need games to be defined as art.

Can you define art?

Yes. Kinda. As nebulous as the definition is, art is always created from the need to express, create a product, or masturbate[1]. Anything you already define as art will fall into any combination of those categories.

A paint company can not claim ownership of a painting that someone makes with their paints. The same should apply to games, as the video content created by a user was created by that user, and not the company that merely provided the tools and materials to create that video.

You're talking about very different things here. Defining games as "art" does not make art into a raw material like paint. In fact, defining it as art makes it much less so. Copyright was invented to protect the arts. So, I'm not sure how defining games as art somehow makes them immune from copyright claims. The fact that they are creative works is what gives them copyright protection in the first place.

A LP video is still a form or expression, and a bit of masturbation. They might be doing it in a playground of someone else' design, but the viewer of the LP will not have the same experience that the game maker built, packaged, and sold. At that point, it's a new piece of work; derived from another. And because of the nature of LPs, the new product will always be a lesser piece of work than the original, because the viewer will be unable to experience it in the way it was intended.

At the very least, if you want to claim infringement, then the original content creator needs to post their own LPs so that the current LPers are infringing on that property.

[1] figuratively speaking of course

Removing videos because they have trailer footage and the like? I can absolutely understand people getting upset.
However I feel like this was meant more for those people who do complete game walkthroughs and just comment once in a while. I mean don't get me wrong doing LPs is fine but when you play a game without knowing it inside out it's not the case of your content earning you money, it's the game.
Which brings me to this: don't basically all the major game publishers and developers explicitly state that you are not allowed to use their content without permission in their EULAs? I'm sure I've read it in at least a dozen just this year.

Entitled:
Some copyright monopoly is needed to sustain basic industry activities, but it shouldn't be EVER be called "intellectual property".

Why not?

"Intellectual property" is an umbrella term, and copyright is just one form of it. The term also covers things like patents and trademarks. It is a useful term, because it reduces the misuse of words like "copyright" being used to refer to the other forms of intellectual property.

But maybe you could explain why this term should not EVER (in all-caps) be used?

Aardvaarkman:

ZippyDSMlee:
Funny thing is I think that most of the videos are for profit thus need copy right permission, when you are for profit you have to get the license IMO.

No, that's not how it works.

Being for profit is not the only factor that determines copyright infringement. It is perfectly possible for derivative works that are non-profit to be infringing. It's also possible for derivative works that are for profit to be non-infringing.

There are four factor used in determining fair use under copyright law:

the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.

So, it's not a simple matter of "profit" or "non-profit." In fact, if it were that simple, that would have terribly detrimental effects. Take TV comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, for example. SNL exists to make a profit, yet frequently parodies and satirises pop culture, including copyrighted material. If the simple fact that SNL exists for profit required them to license any material that they parody, they would basically be shut down, because very few of the publishers or artists being parodied would grant them a license to the material, because they don't want to be made fun of. This is an essential Freedom of Speech issue.

This is a pretty good resource for learning more about this quagmire:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

Parody and clearly exempt satire can use parody so it can be above board.

The nature of these works is for profit hardly free speech. You can talk about it without showing it. Thats just my feeling on it.

I'd rather have a system based off profit if there is no revenue then there is no harm. Tho fair use would still be needed under such a system just much less vague to stop laywers gaining money from the system.

Signa:

Aardvaarkman:

Signa:
This is why we need games to be defined as art.

Can you define art?

Yes. Kinda. As nebulous as the definition is, art is always created from the need to express, create a product, or masturbate. Anything you already define as art will fall into any combination of those categories.

OK, So how does that make video games like paint, which is a consumable material? You argued that video games should be defined as art, so that they would be more like paint. But few people define paint as art, so I'm not sure how that argument makes sense. Defining games as art would make them much less like a raw material, and more like, well, art.

A LP video is still a form or expression, and a bit of masturbation. They might be doing it in a playground of someone else' design, but the viewer of the LP will not have the same experience that the game maker built, packaged, and sold. At that point, it's a new piece of work; derived from another.

But how much of a new work is not clear. This is one of the problems with copyright law - the lines are very blurred. Part of creating new works is how "transformative" the works are. Somebody significantly transforming the work for the purposes of satire, parody, criticism, political speech or analysis is much more likely to gain protection than somebody simply recording themselves playing a game with little meaningful commentary.

Also, somebody could make a derivative work that is blatantly infringing. For example, a car dealership using footage from Grand Theft Auto to promote their business, without any critical or transformative value, whose only purpose is to profit from the work of the original artists.

And because of the nature of LPs, the new product will always be a lesser piece of work than the original, because the viewer will be unable to experience it in the way it was intended.

Not necessarily. Sometimes experiencing something in the way it was not "intended" can be better than the original. Take, for example, Unskippable. I get a lot more enjoyment from watching the Unskippable videos than I do from experiencing the original cut-scenes as intended by the game publisher.

Also see: ironic enjoyment, hate-watching, many cult movies, and "so bad, it's good." No art or creative work is fixed in the way it is used or perceived. The idea of authorial intent as primary has long been discarded as an important concept in art theory, and has never been less important than it is today, when many "mash ups" and derivations transcend the original.

figuratively speaking of course

Why does the masturbation have to be figurative? I'm pretty sure there's a lot of literal masturbation going on, too.

ZippyDSMlee:

Parody and clearly exempt satire can use parody so it can be above board.

Which is exactly what I was saying. You can't base it just on profit, because there are plenty of profitable uses which are also valid parody and satire.

The nature of these works is for profit hardly free speech. You can talk about it without showing it. Thats just my feeling on it.

Which works are you referring to specifically? It seems a little unfair to lump everything together. Sure, for every 1,000 useless and derivative "Let's Plays" there might only be one that's original and creative - but why should that one original piece of art suffer because of the other 1,000 morons?

I'd rather have a system based off profit if there is no revenue then there is no harm.

So, money is the only important thing? What about things like defamation or moral rights? Not everybody is all about the money. There can be infringing uses that are emotionally or personally harmful that are not financially harmful.

A very current example of this might be something like The Beastie Boys vs. Goldieblox, which was not about financial damage to The Beastie Boys (they hardly need more money at this point), but rather the wishes of Adam Yauch for the band's work not to be used in advertising, because it cheapens their legacy.

Another example might be somebody posting another person's artwork online with the simple intent to bully or harass the artists. Not that y this I don't mean actual parody or satire, but straight-up using someone's work, and then calling them names because of it. No financial harm, but possible life-long emotional scarring. Which is worth more - money, or people's dignity?

furai47:
Which brings me to this: don't basically all the major game publishers and developers explicitly state that you are not allowed to use their content without permission in their EULAs? I'm sure I've read it in at least a dozen just this year.

They can say whatever they want in their EULAs. That doesn't make it legally binding. The US and most modern countries have laws the supersede a lot of the boilerplate written into such statements.

The publisher can claim you need a license to use their footage all they want, but they don't have a leg to stand on if your usage falls under fair use or other protected categories. It's not that much different than somebody claiming in a contract that they have the right to kill you if you sign the contract. It's not legal, no matter how they state it.

Aardvaarkman:

Signa:

Aardvaarkman:

Can you define art?

Yes. Kinda. As nebulous as the definition is, art is always created from the need to express, create a product, or masturbate. Anything you already define as art will fall into any combination of those categories.

OK, So how does that make video games like paint, which is a consumable material? You argued that video games should be defined as art, so that they would be more like paint. But few people define paint as art, so I'm not sure how that argument makes sense. Defining games as art would make them much less like a raw material, and more like, well, art.

Oh video games and information based products are absolutely consumable. That's why we are called consumers. The only difference between paint and footage for LPs is that the games footage has taken form into something more defined than just buckets of color. Still, if someone wanted to go through a ton of magazines and cut pictures from them to make a collage of something different and greater, I'd defend that artist if the magazine companies tried suing them for copyright infringement.

As for the rest of your post, I have a few nitpicks, but I agree enough in spirit that I'm not going to turn this into an needless argument. I'm at work right now anyway, so these posts are being made on stolen time.

Signa:

Oh video games and information based products are absolutely consumable.

No, they aren't. They are completely re-usable. A "consumable" product is something like toilet paper or oil. There is none of it left after you have consumed it.

That's why we are called consumers.

You may call yourself a "consumer" but I do not. I'm a person.

The only difference between paint and footage for LPs is that the games footage has taken form into something more defined than just buckets of colour.

No, that's not the only difference. There are thousands more differences.

As for the rest of your post, I have a few nitpicks, but I agree enough in spirit that I'm not going to turn this into an needless argument. I'm at work right now anyway, so these posts are being made on stolen time.

But you can't steal time! Time steals YOU.

Aardvaarkman:

Which is exactly what I was saying. You can't base it just on profit, because there are plenty of profitable uses which are also valid parody and satire.

Yes but parody sets itself apart because its new yet loosely based something else. It being losely based makes it its own IP 8 times out of ten.

Which works are you referring to specifically? It seems a little unfair to lump everything together. Sure, for every 1,000 useless and derivative "Let's Plays" there might only be one that's original and creative - but why should that one original piece of art suffer because of the other 1,000 morons?

To many to name but my train of thought is it dose not matter if you are trying to make a profit then get the license or do not do it for profit.

So, money is the only important thing? What about things like defamation or moral rights? Not everybody is all about the money. There can be infringing uses that are emotionally or personally harmful that are not financially harmful.

You can do all that without the licensed material and if fair use was not vague and easily overruled you'd be able to do it better than today's hit or miss legal BS. I'd like clear rules over clip time and quality if short and low on quality then there can never be harm done. If short or low quality it should be able to pass fair use rules.

A very current example of this might be something like The Beastie Boys vs. Goldieblox, which was not about financial damage to The Beastie Boys (they hardly need more money at this point), but rather the wishes of Adam Yauch for the band's work not to be used in advertising, because it cheapens their legacy.

Its gaining revenue thus needs a license from the IP owner, if you can post something that dose not require money from anyone else but you AND the site allows it then there is no harm, people defame art all the time via mix tapes, remade music videos if an artist is that worried about such things then they are better off not being an artist. Art is meant to be consumed and regurgitated not made in stone and untouchable.

Profiting has its place as dose free consumption and use the trick is the balance and that comes down to revenue generation its the only thing limited in scope that dose not write off those unable to pay. Having a system based on distribution is just illogical IMO.

Mind you non profits profit so I am highly skeptical of any big organization being truly revenue neutral enough to allow free distribution so it will be limtied even youtube and the like profit.

It also makes it easier to go after piracy as focusing on profit makes its easier to make trade deals with other countries.

There is a method to my maddness and I am not getting rid of fair use but rather trying to limit abuse from the top down its the ebst system I can come up with even if alas I am an idiot.

Another example might be somebody posting another person's artwork online with the simple intent to bully or harass the artists. Not that y this I don't mean actual parody or satire, but straight-up using someone's work, and then calling them names because of it. No financial harm, but possible life-long emotional scarring. Which is worth more - money, or people's dignity?

If its within community guidelines then its okay but how many communities allow such things? And not to mention there are such things as defamation lawsuits so at the end of the day you have many channels to go through before you even need to use copy right claims its just such claims are easier to use.

It's a shame the escapist don't have a "like"-button, 'cus I'm liking the shit out if this. Well said, Jimmy.

senordesol:
But LPs? Trailer Footage? Reviews? The only way I can conceive of that hurting a company is if a product sucks and the footage proves it. But then, they've got bigger problems don't they?

Already happened. Look up Totalbisuit and Day One Garry's Incident.

Also, what vid was taken down of Jim's?

Well Jim, we here in Germany have no law similar to the US Fair use principle. Let's play videos or reviews from German youtube users are pulled from the internet for years.

Terminate421:
I feel like this happens because the publishers are bored and feel like getting attention every now and then.

I think it's more a case of their Legal departments needing to justify their existence every now and then. I mean, think about it: a game is being well-received, its publisher isn't seeing a lot of reasons to earn flak for its actions, these poor old widdle lawyers need to make money.

So, um, off to YouTube to land spurious copyright claims, I guess, because then you can look up to Daddy McPublisher and go "Lookit, Dada! I stopped the bad guys for you! I love you!"

Either that or it's the guy who's at the head of Legal who's misinterpreting the purpose of LPs and game reviews - or some Gray Eminence in the board of directors who feels threatened when he has no reason to.

I always figured it was a generational problem. Once the current thirtysomethings turn up as CEOs of their own publishing instances, things just might change.

Or they might not, since they'll have tasted of wealth and affluence and will feel lost sales cutting deeply into their Tahiti vacation funds.

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".

OK, so you are not obligated to share your property with others, even if doing so doesn't cause any harm. Got it.

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

So, property is a moral right, and to restrict the rights of the property-owner requires seriously important justifications. OK.

Entitled:
They entirely ignore that free communication is also a moral good by default, as if it would all be a form of asking for "free stuff" out of other people's property, rather than a freedom which their control blocks by it's presence.

Uh, what? I'm not seeing what this has to do with "free communication" or where "free communication" is defined as a legal or moral right.

Entitled:
This is the same reason why copyright has been extended to artist's life + 70 years. They shifted the argument from "Is there a need to control this?" to "Is there a justification NOT TO control this?", and kept rationalizing all expansion with that attitude, as if a writer's grandchildren no longer controlling a literary classic's fate would be a tragic case of them "losing property", rather than them losing a market monopoly (that was granted to incentivize writing).

So, the right to control one's property is an inalienable right, except for when it comes to intellectual property, in which case, anybody is free to use it any way possible?

You aren't being very coherent here.

You start out by saying that the property owner when it comes to a car has absolute authority over what is done with their property. But then you go on to say that the owner of a creative property should essentially have no say over what is done with their property, and it should be open to everybody. This is logically inconsistent.

Strazdas:

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.

I'm not sure I understand you, but I have the feeling that you are reading my posts out of their context.

I have presented the publishers' perspective, and how they are justifying copyright, but in the famework that their justifications are WRONG.

How they are using the public's perception of property as an "inalienable human right", to argue that copyright should work similarly.

For example:

Strazdas:

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

They don't acknowledge that train of thought, because in their presentation, it is not the video that is someone's property, like "the car" from the analogy, but the copyrighted game itself, and recording and copying even a piece of it is "taking that piece away" from it's "owner", so the video as a whole is an act of theft.

Strazdas:

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.

We are talking about the moral justifications that people use for legal rights here. Sure, property is protected by laws, but the reason that those laws exist, is that securing property in it's owner's hands is considered morally virtous.

Theft isn't just wrong because it is illegal, but it is desired to be illegal because even if it wouldn't be, theft would be called a "Malum in se", an axiomatic wrong, something that is wrong by it's very nature.

Publishers want to jump on the bandwagon of association by presenting copyright regulation as an intellectual "property", and it's infringement as "theft".

Strazdas:

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?"

The problem with treating a game as property, is that unlike a single object owned by a single person, this "IP" has many people's interests in it, from the creators and the publishers, to the players and the LP video producers, who all feel entitled to use and copy and control it in certain ways.

Treating a video resulting from the game's recording as someone's "property", is just as flawed logic as treating the game itself as property, and has the same problems.

Information is not property, it's communication.

Going after videos containing B-roll or any reviews is as bad as uploading a playthrough of a game and monetizing without permission. Actual cases of copyright infringement should be stopped, and videos with fair use rights shouldn't be flagged ever.

Strazdas:
snip

I can help with answering some of the Game Anyone questions.
The first one about how everything is marked as a Walkthrough, you'll be able to tell if it has commentary or not if it has a little microphone icon on the playlist. It's in the column labeled "Traits".
Here's what it looks like:
image
Also, you can tell if a Walkthrough is in HD or not as it will have a little HD icon in the "Traits" section.
Here's what that one looks like:
image

Now you noticed how you picked a guide from 2009, well Game Anyone hosts some YouTube LP/Walkthrough videos if the content creator decides to have them hosted there. As for the quality, in 2009 HD capture cards weren't so great and YouTube's constant changes in quality messed with some things.
Now there are also walkthroughs that are exclusive to the site, those ones are Blue when you are on this list of playlists.


As you can see on the list, there is the HD symbol meaning those Walkthroughs are in HD, and there is a microphone on some of them, meaning those ones have commentary. The stars next to my playlist (Roxas1359) is something new that was recently implemented. Basically the stars represent the number of achievements/trophies that I unlocked in the game and were caught on the capture.
The popularity meter is also something new, and from what Maceman told me, it's basically just a rating on how many people watch that walkthrough as apposed to other ones. Before we had a Star System for rating the Walkthroughs overall, but the system was being abused so Maceman changed it to the Popularity meter. Although videos themselves can still be rated with Stars from 1 to 5 and then the average is taken into account.

SecondPrize:
Going after videos containing B-roll or any reviews is as bad as uploading a playthrough of a game and monetizing without permission. Actual cases of copyright infringement should be stopped, and videos with fair use rights shouldn't be flagged ever.

Problem is that Fair Use is severely outdated and needs to be changed or update to apply to modern day media. Plus YouTube has a broken automated system that has it so that anyone can flag a video as infringing copyright without needing to provide proof that the flagger owns the copyright itself. Heck it's happening right now as many people are getting flagged by different trolls.

Aardvaarkman:

Entitled:
They entirely ignore that free communication is also a moral good by default, as if it would all be a form of asking for "free stuff" out of other people's property, rather than a freedom which their control blocks by it's presence.

Uh, what? I'm not seeing what this has to do with "free communication" or where "free communication" is defined as a legal or moral right.

You might have also heard about it as "freedom of speech", "freedom of expression", or based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; "the right to seek, recieve and impart information".

It's rather simple. If you have copyright over a piece of information, it means that I'm not allowed to freely receive or impart that information. For example I'm not allowed to print out certain books, I'm not allowed to publically sing certain songs, or I'm not allowed to distribute videos of me playing certain games.

Right, some or more of these limitations on my free speech might actually be justified by the publishers' necessity to publish, I'm not contesting that. But the way the copyright industry works right now, this isn't even considered right now, they are not seeking justifications, just assuming that copyright is a form of property therefore it needs as much ontrol by an owner as they can get away with.

Aardvaarkman:

So, the right to control one's property is an inalienable right, except for when it comes to intellectual property, in which case, anybody is free to use it any way possible?

You aren't being very coherent here.

You start out by saying that the property owner when it comes to a car has absolute authority over what is done with their property. But then you go on to say that the owner of a creative property should essentially have no say over what is done with their property, and it should be open to everybody. This is logically inconsistent.

Hunting rights should be limited to those with proper licences, except for job hunting, which should be allowed without a hunting license.

Assassinations should be illegal, except for character assassinations.

Property rights deserve as much protection as possible, except for intellectual property rights.

I'm not really seeing your confusion at my stance, unless it is sarcastic, given that you have already quoted and replied to my other post in which I declared that copyright shouldn't be called intellectual property:

Aardvaarkman:

"Intellectual property" is an umbrella term, and copyright is just one form of it. The term also covers things like patents and trademarks. It is a useful term, because it reduces the misuse of words like "copyright" being used to refer to the other forms of intellectual property.

But maybe you could explain why this term should not EVER (in all-caps) be used?

Intellectual property is a misleading analogy. A figure of speech, that makes sense in a very narrow context, and breaks down in all others.

Controlling monopolistic regulations over other people's information sharing (a.k.a. communication, self-expression, knowledge), is not at all similar to ownership of object.

That phrase leads to the unneccessary growth of copyright regulation, under the assumption that if information (such as a game) is "owned" by someone, then this ownership must be as long-term, as wide, and as inherently desirable, as with objects.

Copyright exists as basically a government subsidy, to protect the basic sustainability of artistic professions. But it comes at a price that every act of copyright limits the public's free speech.

The illusion that all ideas should be "owned" unless justified by vital needs for Fair Use, is a complete reversal of all speech being free by default, unless necessarily limited by a regulation (with a particular pragmatic purpose).

This leads to cases like this, with publishers attacking derivative works without any clearly defined need to do so, solely out of a sense of desire for controlling "their property".

 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
Registered for a free account here