Escapist Podcast: 120: YouTube Copyright

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

120: YouTube Copyright

This week, we discuss the recent copyright events on YouTube.

Watch Video

I hate Bieber as much as anyone. By that I mean a LOT. How long is this ad for him? Because it feels like the entirety of whatever documentary is being made of him. Just, eww.
So, on topic, I'd be fully willing to watch videos on another service. I'm not beholden to Youtube in any way. If a service has the infrastructure to handle the load of Youtube viewers, I'd fully support a mass exodus of content creators.
Edit: I vote redub in the voice of Smaug

At one point you guys mention that this is just a small part of Youtube and it really doesn't effect the majority of users. But if every video that is to be monatized has to be reviewed first after January, wouldn't that affect every single user of the service? Including girls doing daily make-up tips and what not?

There is no way they could limit it just to games that wouldn't allow dodging around it.

So come January, I expect this to become a major thing for all Youtubers, not just the ones with gaming channels.

Angry Joe made a follow up video to his original rant proposing a way for everyone involved coming out on top, why not just give everyone involved a cut of the revenue? A percentage for the content creator, a percentage for the copyright holder and a percentage for YouTube itself. As long as the content itself is legal under fair use there should be no need to take it down. If it is a critique, review, or transformative work, the content creator should still get a slice of the pie.

Corven:
Angry Joe made a follow up video to his original rant proposing a way for everyone involved coming out on top, why not just give everyone involved a cut of the revenue? A percentage for the content creator, a percentage for the copyright holder and a percentage for YouTube itself. As long as the content itself is legal under fair use there should be no need to take it down. If it is a critique, review, or transformative work, the content creator should still get a slice of the pie.

That would require compromise, and everyone working together for the betterment of all.

So, not gonna happen. Corporations, especially, aren't interested in such things. If they can't have it all, they want it bombed into oblivion.

Jimothy Sterling:

Corven:
Angry Joe made a follow up video to his original rant proposing a way for everyone involved coming out on top, why not just give everyone involved a cut of the revenue? A percentage for the content creator, a percentage for the copyright holder and a percentage for YouTube itself. As long as the content itself is legal under fair use there should be no need to take it down. If it is a critique, review, or transformative work, the content creator should still get a slice of the pie.

That would require compromise, and everyone working together for the betterment of all.

So, not gonna happen. Corporations, especially, aren't interested in such things. If they can't have it all, they want it bombed into oblivion.

I know right? Errgh! It still sucks that there can't simply a percentages agreement. Or some giant database hub that allows for easier communication, clearance between all parties. I remember reading years ago in some article, that questioned the RZA about his usage of sampling in old Wu-Tang albums and in principle, this type of percentages cut agreement was pretty much the same deal he struck with Chaka Khan to use her old vocal samples and song stems.

Really happy to see Jim on the Podcat, hope he shows on every episode from now on.

Jimothy Sterling:

That would require compromise, and everyone working together for the betterment of all.

So, not gonna happen. Corporations, especially, aren't interested in such things. If they can't have it all, they want it bombed into oblivion.

I think the problem is different ideologies.
They make their decisions on the basis of the Egoistic Agent, a model for individuals in social interactions.
The science behind it is called Game-Theory, which describes social interactions as a game.
Agents in this game make moves based on calculated benefits and you can try to anticipate other agents moves based on how you model them.
Classically, they were constructed as egoistic agents, who assume that everyone acts solely to their own benefit.
Cooperative Models were later introduced, when the egoistic model was already popular.

It was the political and economic sphere who readyily adopted the egoistic model to help making decisions, which is not surprising since market-capitalism is already based on greed, the amassment of personal benefit.

The Internet on the other hand came from a scientific background, which had more emphasis on collaboration.
Progress in modern science is rarely made by a single genius but with a team working together.

And from this opposition of egoistic business and collaborative science stems this problem.
Egoistic agents acting in a collaborative system for their own benefit will force collaborative agents to either become egoistic themselves or, perhaps, will make them form a cooperative unity powerful enough to counter them.

I fear that they eventually poison everything and destroy the Internet's collaborative nature, which is what we have seen over the last few years with the increase in gouvernmental control over the web.

I'm worried that if copyright were given a rewrite, companies like Disney would get too large a say in what is legislated. On the other hand, many people who right the laws are written by people with no knowledge of how to do it evenhandedly.

Jimothy Sterling:

Corven:
Angry Joe made a follow up video to his original rant proposing a way for everyone involved coming out on top, why not just give everyone involved a cut of the revenue? A percentage for the content creator, a percentage for the copyright holder and a percentage for YouTube itself. As long as the content itself is legal under fair use there should be no need to take it down. If it is a critique, review, or transformative work, the content creator should still get a slice of the pie.

That would require compromise, and everyone working together for the betterment of all.

So, not gonna happen. Corporations, especially, aren't interested in such things. If they can't have it all, they want it bombed into oblivion.

Sure, with that attitude it'll never happen. It's not like your organized enough like real journalists who created the Associated Press to deal with this exact issue within the news organizations. NBC can't rofl stomp all the news papers out of existance by refusing to share their stories, and tiny nothing reporters can't steal a story from them without paying the royalty.

The issue is more that, even if you did organize, all the publishers and devs have to do is offer your competitors the permission. Your competition gets the stories as scabs, and you starve. You just have to work with your competitors, and that's the hard part. Not the corporations not playing ball. That part is easy once you organize.

Why is it that the Regan Era anti collective bargaining thinking permeates western thinking, and not 1800's american thinking that created things like the Associated Press.

YouTube will fail sooner or later with more moves like this. MySpace thought they were invincible at some point. Someone will host a site in a non-US and non-EU country and uploaders will just slowly turn to it.

This method of automatically flagging anything with clips of someone else's work is probably the worst way of going about it, but very many of the content creators on youtube don't have the rights to broadcast what they are and have never even asked for the rights to do so. Fair Use is an argument you can make in court if you need to defend what you're doing, it is not, and has never been, a magical phrase that allows you to do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours. Something had to be done, hopefully they'll figure out an intelligent way of doing it.

SecondPrize:
This method of automatically flagging anything with clips of someone else's work is probably the worst way of going about it, but very many of the content creators on youtube don't have the rights to broadcast what they are and have never even asked for the rights to do so. Fair Use is an argument you can make in court if you need to defend what you're doing, it is not, and has never been, a magical phrase that allows you to do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours. Something had to be done, hopefully they'll figure out an intelligent way of doing it.

Most youtubers get permission by signing up with networks or becoming Partners.But since you and everyone else keeps bringing up the "making money off of someone's work or using it for your benefit" argument may I point that that's pretty how the entire world works?People are always using something that someone else made yet they aren't punished for it,so what makes video games any special?

the hidden eagle:

SecondPrize:
This method of automatically flagging anything with clips of someone else's work is probably the worst way of going about it, but very many of the content creators on youtube don't have the rights to broadcast what they are and have never even asked for the rights to do so. Fair Use is an argument you can make in court if you need to defend what you're doing, it is not, and has never been, a magical phrase that allows you to do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours. Something had to be done, hopefully they'll figure out an intelligent way of doing it.

Most youtubers get permission by signing up with networks or becoming Partners.But since you and everyone else keeps bringing up the "making money off of someone's work or using it for your benefit" argument may I point that that's pretty how the entire world works?People are always using something that someone else made yet they aren't punished for it,so what makes video games any special?

This. Everything is derivative of something else. We very rarely have new ideas anymore. Should the Shelley estate sue the creators of American Horror Story for having a man pieced together from parts of other men? Should the Stokers sue, well, everyone for popularizing vampires in fiction? Where does it end?

the hidden eagle:

SecondPrize:
This method of automatically flagging anything with clips of someone else's work is probably the worst way of going about it, but very many of the content creators on youtube don't have the rights to broadcast what they are and have never even asked for the rights to do so. Fair Use is an argument you can make in court if you need to defend what you're doing, it is not, and has never been, a magical phrase that allows you to do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours. Something had to be done, hopefully they'll figure out an intelligent way of doing it.

Most youtubers get permission by signing up with networks or becoming Partners.But since you and everyone else keeps bringing up the "making money off of someone's work or using it for your benefit" argument may I point that that's pretty how the entire world works?People are always using something that someone else made yet they aren't punished for it,so what makes video games any special?

You're missing something important when you put it that way, permission. Videogames are special because LPers don't bother to get permission. I bought permission to use photoshop professionally when I purchased photoshop. If I go into the home depot and buy a hammer it's implied that I can use it for whatever I want to. Again and again, in any case you can bring up where someone is making money from the work of others, that person has permission to do so if they're operating legally.
The copyright holders for most any game have the right to restrict broadcasts of the software, that's somewhere in the eula for anything. While they may be happy to give permission to LPers who ask, or may not flag a video with their stuff, what they haven't done is given up the right to restrict use.

SecondPrize:

the hidden eagle:

SecondPrize:
This method of automatically flagging anything with clips of someone else's work is probably the worst way of going about it, but very many of the content creators on youtube don't have the rights to broadcast what they are and have never even asked for the rights to do so. Fair Use is an argument you can make in court if you need to defend what you're doing, it is not, and has never been, a magical phrase that allows you to do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours. Something had to be done, hopefully they'll figure out an intelligent way of doing it.

Most youtubers get permission by signing up with networks or becoming Partners.But since you and everyone else keeps bringing up the "making money off of someone's work or using it for your benefit" argument may I point that that's pretty how the entire world works?People are always using something that someone else made yet they aren't punished for it,so what makes video games any special?

You're missing something important when you put it that way, permission. Videogames are special because LPers don't bother to get permission. I bought permission to use photoshop professionally when I purchased photoshop. If I go into the home depot and buy a hammer it's implied that I can use it for whatever I want to. Again and again, in any case you can bring up where someone is making money from the work of others, that person has permission to do so if they're operating legally.
The copyright holders for most any game have the right to restrict broadcasts of the software, that's somewhere in the eula for anything. While they may be happy to give permission to LPers who ask, or may not flag a video with their stuff, what they haven't done is given up the right to restrict use.

Did you get permission for using the clothes you wear everyday,the transport you use to get to places,the food you eat,or the computer you are using to post here?If the answer is no then why should video games be sancrosanct when it comes to people making online walktroughs of them? EULAs aren't admissible in most courts since people can't actually read and agree to them unless they buy the product.

the hidden eagle:

SecondPrize:

the hidden eagle:
Most youtubers get permission by signing up with networks or becoming Partners.But since you and everyone else keeps bringing up the "making money off of someone's work or using it for your benefit" argument may I point that that's pretty how the entire world works?People are always using something that someone else made yet they aren't punished for it,so what makes video games any special?

You're missing something important when you put it that way, permission. Videogames are special because LPers don't bother to get permission. I bought permission to use photoshop professionally when I purchased photoshop. If I go into the home depot and buy a hammer it's implied that I can use it for whatever I want to. Again and again, in any case you can bring up where someone is making money from the work of others, that person has permission to do so if they're operating legally.
The copyright holders for most any game have the right to restrict broadcasts of the software, that's somewhere in the eula for anything. While they may be happy to give permission to LPers who ask, or may not flag a video with their stuff, what they haven't done is given up the right to restrict use.

Did you get permission for using the clothes you wear everyday,the transport you use to get to places,the food you eat,or the computer you are using to post here?If the answer is no then why should video games be sancrosanct when it comes to people making online walktroughs of them? EULAs aren't admissible in most courts since people can't actually read and agree to them unless they buy the product.

Did you just not read what I wrote about other stuff and the right to use it or are you pretending not to understand it?
You have the right to use most of the stuff you buy however you see fit. You don't have the right to use copyrighted material however you see fit. Let me ask you some questions, since you seem to like that. Do you copy books at kinkos and sell them yourself? Do you burn dvds and hustle them on a corner? Do you copy albums and sell em at a market? If the answer is no, why do you think it's okay to do it with games?

SecondPrize:

the hidden eagle:

SecondPrize:

You're missing something important when you put it that way, permission. Videogames are special because LPers don't bother to get permission. I bought permission to use photoshop professionally when I purchased photoshop. If I go into the home depot and buy a hammer it's implied that I can use it for whatever I want to. Again and again, in any case you can bring up where someone is making money from the work of others, that person has permission to do so if they're operating legally.
The copyright holders for most any game have the right to restrict broadcasts of the software, that's somewhere in the eula for anything. While they may be happy to give permission to LPers who ask, or may not flag a video with their stuff, what they haven't done is given up the right to restrict use.

Did you get permission for using the clothes you wear everyday,the transport you use to get to places,the food you eat,or the computer you are using to post here?If the answer is no then why should video games be sancrosanct when it comes to people making online walktroughs of them? EULAs aren't admissible in most courts since people can't actually read and agree to them unless they buy the product.

Did you just not read what I wrote about other stuff and the right to use it or are you pretending not to understand it?
You have the right to use most of the stuff you buy however you see fit. You don't have the right to use copyrighted material however you see fit. Let me ask you some questions, since you seem to like that. Do you copy books at kinkos and sell them yourself? Do you burn dvds and hustle them on a corner? Do you copy albums and sell em at a market? If the answer is no, why do you think it's okay to do it with games?

Here's thing....LPers aren't making illegal copies of games and selling them.They are simply providing a service that millions of people enjoy and they should get compensated for it.

Copyright or not there is nothing illegal from making online videos of games and I don't know why you seem to think that's equal to making bootleg products when it's not.

the hidden eagle:

SecondPrize:

the hidden eagle:
Did you get permission for using the clothes you wear everyday,the transport you use to get to places,the food you eat,or the computer you are using to post here?If the answer is no then why should video games be sancrosanct when it comes to people making online walktroughs of them? EULAs aren't admissible in most courts since people can't actually read and agree to them unless they buy the product.

Did you just not read what I wrote about other stuff and the right to use it or are you pretending not to understand it?
You have the right to use most of the stuff you buy however you see fit. You don't have the right to use copyrighted material however you see fit. Let me ask you some questions, since you seem to like that. Do you copy books at kinkos and sell them yourself? Do you burn dvds and hustle them on a corner? Do you copy albums and sell em at a market? If the answer is no, why do you think it's okay to do it with games?

Here's thing....LPers aren't making illegal copies of games and selling them.They are simply providing a service that millions of people enjoy and they should get compensated for it.

Copyright or not there is nothing illegal from making online videos of games and I don't know why you seem to think that's equal to making bootleg products when it's not.

I think that way because in both cases the person doing it does not have the legal right to do so without permission. You have as much right to copy a book as you do to broadcast the entirety of one of Nintendo's games. None whatsoever.

SecondPrize:

the hidden eagle:

SecondPrize:

Did you just not read what I wrote about other stuff and the right to use it or are you pretending not to understand it?
You have the right to use most of the stuff you buy however you see fit. You don't have the right to use copyrighted material however you see fit. Let me ask you some questions, since you seem to like that. Do you copy books at kinkos and sell them yourself? Do you burn dvds and hustle them on a corner? Do you copy albums and sell em at a market? If the answer is no, why do you think it's okay to do it with games?

Here's thing....LPers aren't making illegal copies of games and selling them.They are simply providing a service that millions of people enjoy and they should get compensated for it.

Copyright or not there is nothing illegal from making online videos of games and I don't know why you seem to think that's equal to making bootleg products when it's not.

I think that way because in both cases the person doing it does not have the legal right to do so without permission. You have as much right to copy a book as you do to broadcast the entirety of one of Nintendo's games. None whatsoever.

Says who?Is there a law that states you can't make online videos of video games?If so then you might as well shut down every single website that posts game footage because in your opinion they are not allowed to unless they get permission from developers.Of course that's a slippery slope that many people don't want to see and you are ignoring the fact that many of the channels hit with copyright claims already have permission to post content.

the hidden eagle:

SecondPrize:

the hidden eagle:
Here's thing....LPers aren't making illegal copies of games and selling them.They are simply providing a service that millions of people enjoy and they should get compensated for it.

Copyright or not there is nothing illegal from making online videos of games and I don't know why you seem to think that's equal to making bootleg products when it's not.

I think that way because in both cases the person doing it does not have the legal right to do so without permission. You have as much right to copy a book as you do to broadcast the entirety of one of Nintendo's games. None whatsoever.

Says who?Is there a law that states you can't make online videos of video games?If so then you might as well shut down every single website that posts game footage because in your opinion they are not allowed to unless they get permission from developers.Of course that's a slippery slope that many people don't want to see and you are ignoring the fact that many of the channels hit with copyright claims already have permission to post content.

There are laws that protect every copyrighted product. There are also cases where you can use clips to do your job if you're a critic or video game news site. Most of this falls under Fair Use. In addition, most of the clips these sites use are given them, with permission to use, by the publishers themselves. You can air clips, not the entire game. That's not my opinion, if it was what's happening now on youtube would not be. I'm not ignoring anything about channels with permissions. I stated in my first post that youtube's method of doing this crap because they're hitting videos that should be able to use the clips they're using. That has absolutely nothing to do with videos that don't have the right to broadcast entire games.

SecondPrize:

the hidden eagle:

SecondPrize:
I think that way because in both cases the person doing it does not have the legal right to do so without permission. You have as much right to copy a book as you do to broadcast the entirety of one of Nintendo's games. None whatsoever.

Says who?Is there a law that states you can't make online videos of video games?If so then you might as well shut down every single website that posts game footage because in your opinion they are not allowed to unless they get permission from developers.Of course that's a slippery slope that many people don't want to see and you are ignoring the fact that many of the channels hit with copyright claims already have permission to post content.

There are laws that protect every copyrighted product. There are also cases where you can use clips to do your job if you're a critic or video game news site. Most of this falls under Fair Use. In addition, most of the clips these sites use are given them, with permission to use, by the publishers themselves. You can air clips, not the entire game. That's not my opinion, if it was what's happening now on youtube would not be. I'm not ignoring anything about channels with permissions. I stated in my first post that youtube's method of doing this crap because they're hitting videos that should be able to use the clips they're using. That has absolutely nothing to do with videos that don't have the right to broadcast entire games.

And now we reach the crux of the argument. This entire string of discussion you guys have been stretching has been hinged on the premise of what people were doing with the various videogame clips, music notes, etc was in fact exactly that - using short clips of the product and NOT broadcasting the entire song, game, whatever, then claiming it was theirs. The fact that you were, purposely or not, being entirely too vague about your argument either did not occur to you or you were doing it purposely to move the argument along. Nowhere in any of your posts up until now did you in fact state the assumption that the users getting their videos flagged were broadcasting entire games. Why would you not state this up front? Possibly because in the vast majority of cases this was not the case, and if you had seen either of Angry Joe's videos in regard to youtube's new policies you would see this. Joe is not getting his videos flagged because he's broadcasting an entire 8 hour video for each game he played, then saying, "Yes I made this, it's all mine." His videos are getting flagged for showing 14 seconds of a game here, 10 seconds of a movie there, sometimes a single screen capture from a music video. Now that music video's creator is making money off Joe's work for a single pic. Is this fair? I think not.

Remus:
His videos are getting flagged for showing 14 seconds of a game here, 10 seconds of a movie there, sometimes a single screen capture from a music video. Now that music video's creator is making money off Joe's work for a single pic. Is this fair? I think not.

Did Joe pay the going rate of 0.0155 dollars per minute for his use of their material in his video? No, and is that fair to the artist who's work he used? No, and if you bothered to watch Joe's followup video to suggest a fix he suggested that some way of revenue sharing be implemented to actually pay for the licences.

medv4380:

Remus:
His videos are getting flagged for showing 14 seconds of a game here, 10 seconds of a movie there, sometimes a single screen capture from a music video. Now that music video's creator is making money off Joe's work for a single pic. Is this fair? I think not.

Did Joe pay the going rate of 0.0155 dollars per minute for his use of their material in his video? No, and is that fair to the artist who's work he used? No, and if you bothered to watch Joe's followup video to suggest a fix he suggested that some way of revenue sharing be implemented to actually pay for the licences.

But this is not what is happening. Said claim holders are receiving revenue for the entire video, not just for the few seconds that their material appeared on it. If a system does not work, as Joe said, take it down until a system is created that does work for both the content creator and copyright holder.

So iv read most of the posts and im going to extend this copyright issue in to a possibly stupid but i feel a fair extension of what is happening.
The problem seems to be that uploaders are displaying images or music to people when they dont have permission to show those people those clips.
In theory then if i invite a friend over and i show him GTAV or Brutal legend etc and i have not received permission to show these clips am i not then breaking copyright law.

I am showing my friend the game possibly talking about as we/i play it and pointing out certain instances throughout that illustrates the point.In much the same way LPers do on youtube arguably to a much wider audience however the principle is the same regardless of audience size.
Even thou i have bought the game i have not bought permission to show the game or claim it as my own creation and sell it.
That is not what LPers do they dont claim the games is theirs they are not recreating the game exactly they are just using clips of a product they purchased and telling people about it.

As ridiculous as it may sound if they are truly serious about upholding copyright law shouldnt anyone who shows a friend who hasnt bought a film that film be sued for copyright infringement.Or burning a cd and loaning it to someone.

It either has to be one extreme or another doesnt it ? and sorry for the long post.

Remus:

SecondPrize:

the hidden eagle:
Says who?Is there a law that states you can't make online videos of video games?If so then you might as well shut down every single website that posts game footage because in your opinion they are not allowed to unless they get permission from developers.Of course that's a slippery slope that many people don't want to see and you are ignoring the fact that many of the channels hit with copyright claims already have permission to post content.

There are laws that protect every copyrighted product. There are also cases where you can use clips to do your job if you're a critic or video game news site. Most of this falls under Fair Use. In addition, most of the clips these sites use are given them, with permission to use, by the publishers themselves. You can air clips, not the entire game. That's not my opinion, if it was what's happening now on youtube would not be. I'm not ignoring anything about channels with permissions. I stated in my first post that youtube's method of doing this crap because they're hitting videos that should be able to use the clips they're using. That has absolutely nothing to do with videos that don't have the right to broadcast entire games.

And now we reach the crux of the argument. This entire string of discussion you guys have been stretching has been hinged on the premise of what people were doing with the various videogame clips, music notes, etc was in fact exactly that - using short clips of the product and NOT broadcasting the entire song, game, whatever, then claiming it was theirs. The fact that you were, purposely or not, being entirely too vague about your argument either did not occur to you or you were doing it purposely to move the argument along. Nowhere in any of your posts up until now did you in fact state the assumption that the users getting their videos flagged were broadcasting entire games. Why would you not state this up front? Possibly because in the vast majority of cases this was not the case, and if you had seen either of Angry Joe's videos in regard to youtube's new policies you would see this. Joe is not getting his videos flagged because he's broadcasting an entire 8 hour video for each game he played, then saying, "Yes I made this, it's all mine." His videos are getting flagged for showing 14 seconds of a game here, 10 seconds of a movie there, sometimes a single screen capture from a music video. Now that music video's creator is making money off Joe's work for a single pic. Is this fair? I think not.

I think not too. That's why I mentioned it in my first post. Then I mentioned that the ability to use short clips doesn't mean you can use the whole thing. Try and keep up please.

Remus:

medv4380:

Remus:
His videos are getting flagged for showing 14 seconds of a game here, 10 seconds of a movie there, sometimes a single screen capture from a music video. Now that music video's creator is making money off Joe's work for a single pic. Is this fair? I think not.

Did Joe pay the going rate of 0.0155 dollars per minute for his use of their material in his video? No, and is that fair to the artist who's work he used? No, and if you bothered to watch Joe's followup video to suggest a fix he suggested that some way of revenue sharing be implemented to actually pay for the licences.

But this is not what is happening. Said claim holders are receiving revenue for the entire video, not just for the few seconds that their material appeared on it. If a system does not work, as Joe said, take it down until a system is created that does work for both the content creator and copyright holder.

They couldn't even if they wanted to. Since Google purchased YouTube they've been in lawsuit after lawsuit with copyright holders. Each time Google settles with a "well make our copyright protection system better for copyright holders". This has helped keep the hounds at bay. Otherwise, YouTube would have gone the way of Napster.

This is the core of why it's stupid of youtubers to say they'll just abandon YouTube and go somewhere else. The lawsuits will follow, and unless they decide to admit they owe the copyright holders something rather than just say it's "unfair" there isn't going to be any progress.

To be more specific, the entire protection granted by "networks" broke down, involving Universal Music Publishing Group and Fullscreen youtube network, in August because of Copyright on Covers that the music industry has been collecting royalties on for the last half century. If these weren't monetized they'd be covered under fair use since fair use is very broad under non-profit, but very limited when done for commercial purposes. The only way to stop the impending lawsuit was to implement changes. If Google undid them without a better alternative they would be right back into another lawsuit. When it was shown that the networks were in willful disregard of the licencing and royalty obligations their protection was revoked.

Blame the network that proved the network system was a sham, and the youtubers who've refused to play by any copyright rules, and flat out refuse to negotiate. Google is doing all it can to address the legal concerns of the copyright holders so they can show in a court of law that they did all they could if it comes down to that.

SecondPrize:

Remus:

SecondPrize:

There are laws that protect every copyrighted product. There are also cases where you can use clips to do your job if you're a critic or video game news site. Most of this falls under Fair Use. In addition, most of the clips these sites use are given them, with permission to use, by the publishers themselves. You can air clips, not the entire game. That's not my opinion, if it was what's happening now on youtube would not be. I'm not ignoring anything about channels with permissions. I stated in my first post that youtube's method of doing this crap because they're hitting videos that should be able to use the clips they're using. That has absolutely nothing to do with videos that don't have the right to broadcast entire games.

And now we reach the crux of the argument. This entire string of discussion you guys have been stretching has been hinged on the premise of what people were doing with the various videogame clips, music notes, etc was in fact exactly that - using short clips of the product and NOT broadcasting the entire song, game, whatever, then claiming it was theirs. The fact that you were, purposely or not, being entirely too vague about your argument either did not occur to you or you were doing it purposely to move the argument along. Nowhere in any of your posts up until now did you in fact state the assumption that the users getting their videos flagged were broadcasting entire games. Why would you not state this up front? Possibly because in the vast majority of cases this was not the case, and if you had seen either of Angry Joe's videos in regard to youtube's new policies you would see this. Joe is not getting his videos flagged because he's broadcasting an entire 8 hour video for each game he played, then saying, "Yes I made this, it's all mine." His videos are getting flagged for showing 14 seconds of a game here, 10 seconds of a movie there, sometimes a single screen capture from a music video. Now that music video's creator is making money off Joe's work for a single pic. Is this fair? I think not.

I think not too. That's why I mentioned it in my first post. Then I mentioned that the ability to use short clips doesn't mean you can use the whole thing. Try and keep up please.

Ok lets go to your first post

"This method of automatically flagging anything with clips of someone else's work is probably the worst way of going about it, but very many of the content creators on youtube don't have the rights to broadcast what they are and have never even asked for the rights to do so. Fair Use is an argument you can make in court if you need to defend what you're doing, it is not, and has never been, a magical phrase that allows you to do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours. Something had to be done, hopefully they'll figure out an intelligent way of doing it."

Nowhere in this does it say "Copy an entire work then claim it is your original creation" or any variations thereof. What you did put is, "do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours". This is nonspecific and therefore does not mean the same as the much more specific terminology that you think it means. Again, this is not what Joe and every other reviewer out there is doing. In order to properly review a piece, one must also show samples of said piece in order to prove that it in fact has been viewed. Hence REview. Most often the samples that are used have already been pre-approved by the distributor for public consumption, either through an ad campaign or other general use. Are you keeping up? Therefore, user reviews of a product that show clips from the distributor's own ad campaign fall under the fair use doctrine and cannot be restricted for use only for profit by the copyright holder. This goes against what Youtube is currently doing, which is taking money away from content creators for using material already covered under fair use.

medv4380:

Remus:
His videos are getting flagged for showing 14 seconds of a game here, 10 seconds of a movie there, sometimes a single screen capture from a music video. Now that music video's creator is making money off Joe's work for a single pic. Is this fair? I think not.

Did Joe pay the going rate of 0.0155 dollars per minute for his use of their material in his video? No, and is that fair to the artist who's work he used? No, and if you bothered to watch Joe's followup video to suggest a fix he suggested that some way of revenue sharing be implemented to actually pay for the licences.

Angry Joe and others like him already had permission from the developers to use their content so what exactly is your argument here?

medv4380:

Remus:

medv4380:

Did Joe pay the going rate of 0.0155 dollars per minute for his use of their material in his video? No, and is that fair to the artist who's work he used? No, and if you bothered to watch Joe's followup video to suggest a fix he suggested that some way of revenue sharing be implemented to actually pay for the licences.

But this is not what is happening. Said claim holders are receiving revenue for the entire video, not just for the few seconds that their material appeared on it. If a system does not work, as Joe said, take it down until a system is created that does work for both the content creator and copyright holder.

They couldn't even if they wanted to. Since Google purchased YouTube they've been in lawsuit after lawsuit with copyright holders. Each time Google settles with a "well make our copyright protection system better for copyright holders". This has helped keep the hounds at bay. Otherwise, YouTube would have gone the way of Napster.

This is the core of why it's stupid of youtubers to say they'll just abandon YouTube and go somewhere else. The lawsuits will follow, and unless they decide to admit they owe the copyright holders something rather than just say it's "unfair" there isn't going to be any progress.

To be more specific, the entire protection granted by "networks" broke down, involving Universal Music Publishing Group and Fullscreen youtube network, in August because of Copyright on Covers that the music industry has been collecting royalties on for the last half century. If these weren't monetized they'd be covered under fair use since fair use is very broad under non-profit, but very limited when done for commercial purposes. The only way to stop the impending lawsuit was to implement changes. If Google undid them without a better alternative they would be right back into another lawsuit. When it was shown that the networks were in willful disregard of the licencing and royalty obligations their protection was revoked.

Blame the network that proved the network system was a sham, and the youtubers who've refused to play by any copyright rules, and flat out refuse to negotiate. Google is doing all it can to address the legal concerns of the copyright holders so they can show in a court of law that they did all they could if it comes down to that.

Oh please...Youtube/Google is acting against the interests of many developers/publishers who do not want these videos taken down.So who exactly are they helping?

As for your argument about youtubers owing something to copyright holders.....isn't free advertisement and increasing the sales of their games enough?Afterall a popular youtuber can essentially market the game to millions and save a publisher/developer a ton of money in the process.

Remus:

SecondPrize:

Remus:

And now we reach the crux of the argument. This entire string of discussion you guys have been stretching has been hinged on the premise of what people were doing with the various videogame clips, music notes, etc was in fact exactly that - using short clips of the product and NOT broadcasting the entire song, game, whatever, then claiming it was theirs. The fact that you were, purposely or not, being entirely too vague about your argument either did not occur to you or you were doing it purposely to move the argument along. Nowhere in any of your posts up until now did you in fact state the assumption that the users getting their videos flagged were broadcasting entire games. Why would you not state this up front? Possibly because in the vast majority of cases this was not the case, and if you had seen either of Angry Joe's videos in regard to youtube's new policies you would see this. Joe is not getting his videos flagged because he's broadcasting an entire 8 hour video for each game he played, then saying, "Yes I made this, it's all mine." His videos are getting flagged for showing 14 seconds of a game here, 10 seconds of a movie there, sometimes a single screen capture from a music video. Now that music video's creator is making money off Joe's work for a single pic. Is this fair? I think not.

I think not too. That's why I mentioned it in my first post. Then I mentioned that the ability to use short clips doesn't mean you can use the whole thing. Try and keep up please.

Ok lets go to your first post

"This method of automatically flagging anything with clips of someone else's work is probably the worst way of going about it, but very many of the content creators on youtube don't have the rights to broadcast what they are and have never even asked for the rights to do so. Fair Use is an argument you can make in court if you need to defend what you're doing, it is not, and has never been, a magical phrase that allows you to do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours. Something had to be done, hopefully they'll figure out an intelligent way of doing it."

Nowhere in this does it say "Copy an entire work then claim it is your original creation" or any variations thereof. What you did put is, "do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours". This is nonspecific and therefore does not mean the same as the much more specific terminology that you think it means. Again, this is not what Joe and every other reviewer out there is doing. In order to properly review a piece, one must also show samples of said piece in order to prove that it in fact has been viewed. Hence REview. Most often the samples that are used have already been pre-approved by the distributor for public consumption, either through an ad campaign or other general use. Are you keeping up? Therefore, user reviews of a product that show clips from the distributor's own ad campaign fall under the fair use doctrine and cannot be restricted for use only for profit by the copyright holder. This goes against what Youtube is currently doing, which is taking money away from content creators for using material already covered under fair use.

"Whatever the hell you want..." covers it just fine. Fair use is fine. Reviews are fine. Do you think I started my post with "This method....worst way of going about it," because I think they're doing a bang up job? Of course reviewers need to be able to use clips of shit without the threat of publishers starving them out. What the hell does that have to do with a discussion about whether property and copyrighted property are the same thing and whether broadcasting a game without the right to is a copyright violation?

SecondPrize:
If the answer is no, why do you think it's okay to do it with games?

Well, a big (and arguably primary) difference is that LPers aren't actually selling games. They're selling themselves and their audience. In fact, many LPers (the ones who actually make a living off of it, at least) either get their games directly from the studios making them or from people who have purchased the games already. Or they buy the games themselves.

Of course, even beyond that, there's the simple fact (which Jim Sterling pointed out) that copyright law is insanely outdated. It simply wasn't written to deal with the culture that we live in right now, but it's not being updated to reflect that.

LPers aren't trying to sell a game. They don't have an agenda to push and generally won't shill out games they think are terrible. And mere gameplay isn't what keeps people watching; That's what walkthroughs are for, and those are infinitely less interesting for people who aren't simply trying to find something they're missing in a game they're already playing. LPers are selling their personality to the audience, and they're selling the audience to the ad companies. No money from the consumer ever changes hands, which automatically makes it a massively different situation than most of your examples.

Or, in other words, can you think of any reasons other than "It's copyright law" for why LPers shouldn't be allowed to make a job out of editing together their personalities over videos of games?

Corven:
Angry Joe made a follow up video to his original rant...

It's interesting. I was just checking out that video and people in the comments sections are talking about how watchmojo's account has apparently just been deleted in its entirety. That channel specialized in making "top 10" videos and enjoyed a pretty high traffic of viewers.

So I guess whether or not reviewers should leave youtube, out of protest, is a moot point since they're being kicked out anyways.

SecondPrize:

Remus:

SecondPrize:
I think not too. That's why I mentioned it in my first post. Then I mentioned that the ability to use short clips doesn't mean you can use the whole thing. Try and keep up please.

Ok lets go to your first post

"This method of automatically flagging anything with clips of someone else's work is probably the worst way of going about it, but very many of the content creators on youtube don't have the rights to broadcast what they are and have never even asked for the rights to do so. Fair Use is an argument you can make in court if you need to defend what you're doing, it is not, and has never been, a magical phrase that allows you to do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours. Something had to be done, hopefully they'll figure out an intelligent way of doing it."

Nowhere in this does it say "Copy an entire work then claim it is your original creation" or any variations thereof. What you did put is, "do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours". This is nonspecific and therefore does not mean the same as the much more specific terminology that you think it means. Again, this is not what Joe and every other reviewer out there is doing. In order to properly review a piece, one must also show samples of said piece in order to prove that it in fact has been viewed. Hence REview. Most often the samples that are used have already been pre-approved by the distributor for public consumption, either through an ad campaign or other general use. Are you keeping up? Therefore, user reviews of a product that show clips from the distributor's own ad campaign fall under the fair use doctrine and cannot be restricted for use only for profit by the copyright holder. This goes against what Youtube is currently doing, which is taking money away from content creators for using material already covered under fair use.

"Whatever the hell you want..." covers it just fine. Fair use is fine. Reviews are fine. Do you think I started my post with "This method....worst way of going about it," because I think they're doing a bang up job? Of course reviewers need to be able to use clips of shit without the threat of publishers starving them out. What the hell does that have to do with a discussion about whether property and copyrighted property are the same thing and whether broadcasting a game without the right to is a copyright violation?

Simple. For some idiot companies watching youtube, it's the same thing. This whole debate has not been about people who lay claim to entire swaths of someone else's product. This is a thing like voter fraud - if it exists, the number of these actions being performed is so miniscule as to not matter. This has been about the reviewers, the people who only show a tiny portion of the product, a portion that itself is public domain, and who have had their videos flagged for it. For some idiot companies watching youtube, a tiny fraction is exactly the same as a whole. No debate, no conflict, they lay claim to the video showing .001% of their game, and it is theirs. This is the problem with the current system. Your argument this entire time has been misdirected at a tiny portion of youtube posters, if they exist at all, and is invalid. How you do not see that is beyond my comprehension.

SecondPrize:

shrekfan246:

SecondPrize:
If the answer is no, why do you think it's okay to do it with games?

Well, a big (and arguably primary) difference is that LPers aren't actually selling games. They're selling themselves and their audience. In fact, many LPers (the ones who actually make a living off of it, at least) either get their games directly from the studios making them or from people who have purchased the games already. Or they buy the games themselves.

Of course, even beyond that, there's the simple fact (which Jim Sterling pointed out) that copyright law is insanely outdated. It simply wasn't written to deal with the culture that we live in right now, but it's not being updated to reflect that.

LPers aren't trying to sell a game. They don't have an agenda to push and generally won't shill out games they think are terrible. And mere gameplay isn't what keeps people watching; That's what walkthroughs are for, and those are infinitely less interesting for people who aren't simply trying to find something they're missing in a game they're already playing. LPers are selling their personality to the audience, and they're selling the audience to the ad companies. No money from the consumer ever changes hands, which automatically makes it a massively different situation than most of your examples.

Or, in other words, can you think of any reasons other than "It's copyright law" for why LPers shouldn't be allowed to make a job out of editing together their personalities over videos of games?

No. There aren't any other reasons.
I imagine that when youtube gets their shit straight there won't be a huge change. The companies that are now saying they don't give a shit will grant permission for any use. Indies will too. Other big companies will have their own pet LPers. Nintendo won't allow LPs. One thing that won't change is copyright law being revised to allow for the rebroadcast of the entirety of a product without the rights to do so, preventing this is why copyright law exists.

Remus:

SecondPrize:

Remus:

Ok lets go to your first post

"This method of automatically flagging anything with clips of someone else's work is probably the worst way of going about it, but very many of the content creators on youtube don't have the rights to broadcast what they are and have never even asked for the rights to do so. Fair Use is an argument you can make in court if you need to defend what you're doing, it is not, and has never been, a magical phrase that allows you to do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours. Something had to be done, hopefully they'll figure out an intelligent way of doing it."

Nowhere in this does it say "Copy an entire work then claim it is your original creation" or any variations thereof. What you did put is, "do whatever the hell you want with work that isn't yours". This is nonspecific and therefore does not mean the same as the much more specific terminology that you think it means. Again, this is not what Joe and every other reviewer out there is doing. In order to properly review a piece, one must also show samples of said piece in order to prove that it in fact has been viewed. Hence REview. Most often the samples that are used have already been pre-approved by the distributor for public consumption, either through an ad campaign or other general use. Are you keeping up? Therefore, user reviews of a product that show clips from the distributor's own ad campaign fall under the fair use doctrine and cannot be restricted for use only for profit by the copyright holder. This goes against what Youtube is currently doing, which is taking money away from content creators for using material already covered under fair use.

"Whatever the hell you want..." covers it just fine. Fair use is fine. Reviews are fine. Do you think I started my post with "This method....worst way of going about it," because I think they're doing a bang up job? Of course reviewers need to be able to use clips of shit without the threat of publishers starving them out. What the hell does that have to do with a discussion about whether property and copyrighted property are the same thing and whether broadcasting a game without the right to is a copyright violation?

Simple. For some idiot companies watching youtube, it's the same thing. This whole debate has not been about people who lay claim to entire swaths of someone else's product. This is a thing like voter fraud - if it exists, the number of these actions being performed is so miniscule as to not matter. This has been about the reviewers, the people who only show a tiny portion of the product, a portion that itself is public domain, and who have had their videos flagged for it. For some idiot companies watching youtube, a tiny fraction is exactly the same as a whole. No debate, no conflict, they lay claim to the video showing .001% of their game, and it is theirs. This is the problem with the current system. Your argument this entire time has been misdirected at a tiny portion of youtube posters, if they exist at all, and is invalid. How you do not see that is beyond my comprehension.

You're right, I'm only talking about those without rights to air shit. That's probably due to the fact that my arguments have all been well directed at them, and never at people uploading anything that falls under fair use. Everyone is being caught up in the net. Once a-fucking-gain, this is something I mentioned at the start. Why don't you look for a discussion in this thread about how it sucks that people whose videos shouldn't be flagged are and join that. You'd probably be of more use there than in one about how some shit on youtube is a copyright violation.

 Pages 1 2 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