Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   In an effort to suck more, YouTube is pulling down Let's Play videos   (forbes.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, YouTube, game publisher, machinima  
•       •       •

6454 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Dec 2013 at 9:40 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



205 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-12 05:41:04 PM  

HeartBurnKid: And did they not buy that music? Did they not buy those games?


They bought copyright material for personal use.  I can't just buy a Stephen King book, add some comments at the beginning of each chapter and sell it as my own, or purchase Fast and Furious 6 and add a commentary track and sell it to stores.
 
2013-12-12 05:42:20 PM  

HeartBurnKid: And did they not buy that music? Did they not buy those games?


Buying a game doesn't automatically grant you rights for public use/demonstration, and the same goes for the music in the game.

/keep pushing those goalpasts, HBK
 
2013-12-12 05:44:36 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: HeartBurnKid: And did they not buy that music? Did they not buy those games?

They bought copyright material for personal use.  I can't just buy a Stephen King book, add some comments at the beginning of each chapter and sell it as my own, or purchase Fast and Furious 6 and add a commentary track and sell it to stores.


RoxtarRyan: HeartBurnKid: And did they not buy that music? Did they not buy those games?

Buying a game doesn't automatically grant you rights for public use/demonstration, and the same goes for the music in the game.

/keep pushing those goalpasts, HBK


You know, it's funny, but when I buy a hammer from Home Depot, nobody asks me if it's for personal use or commercial use.
 
2013-12-12 05:51:49 PM  

HeartBurnKid: You know, it's funny, but when I buy a hammer from Home Depot, nobody asks me if it's for personal use or commercial use.


Cool, how long ago was that created?  Copyright is a time limited arrangement to help protect creative material from being copied without the authorization of the creator or owner of the right to copy in order to promote new works without the fear of unauthorized distribution.  The limitations and scope can depend on the product, when it was created and the restriction on how it might be redistributed can be all subject to the owner of those rights.

If you have a problem with that existing, can't help you there.  But don't be intentionally dense with this hammer bullshiat.
 
2013-12-12 05:52:18 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: gadian: That's sad.  I never actually buy a game anymore unless I see someone else play it and discuss it first.  I may download a copy to tinker with, but I won't buy it.

Let's be honest here.


No, I actually do buy. Its easier than finding and slowly downloading a good torrent.
 
2013-12-12 05:55:32 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: HeartBurnKid: You know, it's funny, but when I buy a hammer from Home Depot, nobody asks me if it's for personal use or commercial use.

Cool, how long ago was that created?  Copyright is a time limited arrangement to help protect creative material from being copied without the authorization of the creator or owner of the right to copy in order to promote new works without the fear of unauthorized distribution.  The limitations and scope can depend on the product, when it was created and the restriction on how it might be redistributed can be all subject to the owner of those rights.

If you have a problem with that existing, can't help you there.  But don't be intentionally dense with this hammer bullshiat.


I'm not being intentionally dense.  I've already said that I object to the modern implementation of copyright.  You can't fall back on "but that's the law!" when my entire point is that the law doesn't reflect the way society works anymore and should be changed.  Not to even mention that Youtube's system goes far beyond the letter of the law in its overzealous enforcement.
 
2013-12-12 06:10:20 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: red5ish: I agree that putting commentary tracks over an entire game is crossing the line - particularly if the game is of the sort that offers only a limited number of solutions. I would have thought that the game manufacturers would themselves take action against that kind of BS. I was thinking more about strategies used in RTS games, or how to live through this level type videos. I have to wonder why anyone would want to watch an entire game being played by someone else. Or how the video maker could monetize that

There are a lot of people willing to.  It's not for me, I find it annoying as hell, but it's an existing audience.  How do they monetize it?  Ads.  Ad revenue alone on some of the people with 1mil+ views can make a person a decent amount of money.  There are Let's Play videos with 20 million views.  Strategies or ones that use specific clips are getting hurt because the algorithm is overly aggressive which sucks, so I hope they sort that out.

Kinek: Strat guides and Madden style commentary are different, but in the same realm. It's value added content, and honestly, there should be an argument that that's transformative. Would you watch half the movies that MST3K did, WITHOUT Mike (Or Joel) and the robots? Going to IMDB, often the rating between the episode and the movie is something like 6-7 points. Like so, I sure as hell wouldn't play Downpour, or Homecoming, but I've watched the Two Best Friends group play through it, and rather enjoyed the experience.

As mentioned, the MST3K people did pay for the rights for those movies to do their commentary.  LPers do not.  Regardless of the value added, it's still display the majority of a creative work that was created by another party with the intent of making money from it and if they don't have authorization from the publisher then it shouldn't be allowed.  Most publishers are more generous than movie studios, they don't care if you put a let's play video up, unless it's monetized.


I don't really care if they paid or not. The question is 'Is it transformative'. Not, 'Did their lawyers say you should pay the fee'.

I'd make the argument that the 'Majority' of the creative work for MST3k was the value added by the riffing crew. If I can, through my own efforts, take a work and recreate it or put it in such a context that it goes from unwatchable, to highly entertaining, then I'd say that that's transformative.
 
2013-12-12 06:10:46 PM  

HeartBurnKid: I'm not being intentionally dense. I've already said that I object to the modern implementation of copyright. You can't fall back on "but that's the law!" when my entire point is that the law doesn't reflect the way society works anymore and should be changed. Not to even mention that Youtube's system goes far beyond the letter of the law in its overzealous enforcement


Youtube is currently being overzealous.  The law does need to evolve as society does.

But my point was that creators should receive compensation for their work, your response was that you don't understand that and provided some terrible analogies.  A hammer and music are obviously not the same thing or held to the same restrictions even under the law because one if a physical object and the other is a creative work that.  Maybe if 3D printers were widely available and Home Depot had to be concerned that the hammer they sold you might get reprinted and sold for even cheaper or given out would hat point make sense, but currently it isn't analogous.

Video games are a collective creation of art and technology and someone putting a video up of a playthrough of the entire work without compensation while adding commentary over it and then making money from it I think is a shiatty move unless the publisher gives them permission to do so.  I think video games should have the same protection of other created works, and adding commentary does not make it something I'd consider transformative.

If you think that they shouldn't need to compensate them, then we simply disagree.  However I wonder how you would feel if you created a song, sold it, and then found out someone took it, mashed it up with another song, and was making money from it.  Maybe you wouldn't care.  If I spent my time and energy creating that, I would.
 
2013-12-12 06:11:26 PM  

RoxtarRyan: HeartBurnKid: So, it turns out that Lets Players aren't the only ones who got caught in this net...


FTFA: "Game Critic Says Youtube Copyright Policy Threatens His Livelihood"

Sorry, cheeky guy with the very grandma-esque armoir behind you, but if you've based your entire livelihood on being a Youtube videogame critic and had no other fallback plan... Some mistakes were probably made.

From the video of the gentleman who shows the diversity of the word "f*ck":
"For years, Youtube made billions off the backs of people and now they're saying fark them".

Welcome to the real world, dude. People get fired/laid off/etc every day. Xerox laid off hundreds of people with armed police present at the scene a couple days ago


Serves 'em right for basing their entire livelihood on being Xerox employees, right?
 
2013-12-12 06:15:08 PM  

HeartBurnKid: I've already said that I object to the modern implementation of copyright.


A lot of things I don't like either, but one thing I like is that it gives content creators the right to pick and choose if they want their stuff shown for free or not. If I put personal money into music/video/other media, and someone else started taking large chunks of my work, merely added commentary and made money off of it while I don't get a dime for the public performance, I'd be pissed off and want them to take it down too. And Youtube can go beyond the letter of the law if they want to.. it is their site, they can do what they want with it. If companies don't care, that's on them. But for companies who don't care for their stuff to be shown while not getting compensated for the public performance, they have the right to enforce the laws in place.
 
2013-12-12 06:19:25 PM  

Prometheus_Unbound: Serves 'em right for basing their entire livelihood on being Xerox employees, right?


They have options, like unemployment. Staking a living off of making off of making youtube commentary/critic videos isn't a rational way to ensure a steady income. It can be a quick buck, easy and fun, but if you plan on doing that as a full-time gig, buying a house, raising a family, etc, it doesn't make a lick of sense to have that be your primary source of income for the majority of people.
 
2013-12-12 06:21:54 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: HeartBurnKid: I'm not being intentionally dense. I've already said that I object to the modern implementation of copyright. You can't fall back on "but that's the law!" when my entire point is that the law doesn't reflect the way society works anymore and should be changed. Not to even mention that Youtube's system goes far beyond the letter of the law in its overzealous enforcement

Youtube is currently being overzealous.  The law does need to evolve as society does.

But my point was that creators should receive compensation for their work, your response was that you don't understand that and provided some terrible analogies.  A hammer and music are obviously not the same thing or held to the same restrictions even under the law because one if a physical object and the other is a creative work that.  Maybe if 3D printers were widely available and Home Depot had to be concerned that the hammer they sold you might get reprinted and sold for even cheaper or given out would hat point make sense, but currently it isn't analogous.

Video games are a collective creation of art and technology and someone putting a video up of a playthrough of the entire work without compensation while adding commentary over it and then making money from it I think is a shiatty move unless the publisher gives them permission to do so.  I think video games should have the same protection of other created works, and adding commentary does not make it something I'd consider transformative.

If you think that they shouldn't need to compensate them, then we simply disagree.  However I wonder how you would feel if you created a song, sold it, and then found out someone took it, mashed it up with another song, and was making money from it.  Maybe you wouldn't care.  If I spent my time and energy creating that, I would.


Thing is, Copyright law doesn't give a fark if you're able to monetize your work or not. That's not the point.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The end goal is to create a cultural domain which FUTURE artists are allowed to draw from. Not so you can make a living. That's a byproduct.
 
2013-12-12 06:22:52 PM  
Goddamn, I need to buy a new keyboard or start using the preview function.

Kinek: I'd make the argument that the 'Majority' of the creative work for MST3k was the value added by the riffing crew. If I can, through my own efforts, take a work and recreate it or put it in such a context that it goes from unwatchable, to highly entertaining, then I'd say that that's transformative


Making jokes over a creative work doesn't transform it into something else.  That's why Rifftrax offers the commentary separately, they don't have to pay for the distribution rights of the movies while still offering the part that they are responsible for creating.
 
2013-12-12 06:28:21 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Goddamn, I need to buy a new keyboard or start using the preview function.

Kinek: I'd make the argument that the 'Majority' of the creative work for MST3k was the value added by the riffing crew. If I can, through my own efforts, take a work and recreate it or put it in such a context that it goes from unwatchable, to highly entertaining, then I'd say that that's transformative

Making jokes over a creative work doesn't transform it into something else. That's why Rifftrax offers the commentary separately, they don't have to pay for the distribution rights of the movies while still offering the part that they are responsible for creating.


We're suffering from an is/ought dilemma here. The reason why they offer it seperately is to avoid expensive lawsuits. That's the same reason why most fair use cases end in someone shuffling off and not pressing it further because the cost of legal action or defense is too high. That's the /is/. You can't point out what people are doing as evidence as that being the way it should be done.

And let's take this

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059080/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">http://www.imd b.com/title/tt0059080/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

That's got a score of 4.1. Pretty average.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0655416/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3">http://www.imd b.com/title/tt0655416/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3

That's got a score of 8.2

So, either MST3k fans really, really love their Gamera, MST3k added, with their jokes and tone, 4.1 points of value to the movie. That's pretty damn transformative in experience. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. They literally doubled the value of Gamera.
 
2013-12-12 06:30:28 PM  

Kinek: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The end goal is to create a cultural domain which FUTURE artists are allowed to draw from. Not so you can make a living. That's a byproduct


Okay?  I'm cool with the distribution rights of creators being protected to help promote and create a cultural domain for artists in the future to draw from that also helps artist make a living now.
 
2013-12-12 06:30:56 PM  
The more I think about this the more I suspect someone at Google, who like to quietly monetize everything, had the idea that they could sell this service to copyright holders - the RIAA, Game manufacturers, et al - and have been aggressively marketing it to them, hence the slew of complaints. I imagine there was a big launch party at one of the Google divisions and this is the result (or unintended consequence).
 
2013-12-12 06:31:34 PM  

Kinek: So, either MST3k fans really, really love their Gamera, MST3k added, with their jokes and tone, 4.1 points of value to the movie. That's pretty damn transformative in experience. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. They literally doubled the value of Gamera


Remove the movie and what's the value of the commentary without it?
 
2013-12-12 06:34:00 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Kinek: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The end goal is to create a cultural domain which FUTURE artists are allowed to draw from. Not so you can make a living. That's a byproduct

Okay?  I'm cool with the distribution rights of creators being protected to help promote and create a cultural domain for artists in the future to draw from that also helps artist make a living now.


I think you misunderstand the argument that I'm trying to make. Giving artists distribution rights is an INCENTIVE. Not a means to an end. You seem to view it as an end, with the enrichment of the public domain being a secondary byproduct.
 
2013-12-12 06:36:21 PM  

Kinek: I think you misunderstand the argument that I'm trying to make. Giving artists distribution rights is an INCENTIVE. Not a means to an end. You seem to view it as an end, with the enrichment of the public domain being a secondary byproduct


No I'm okay with that too.
 
2013-12-12 06:37:10 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Kinek: So, either MST3k fans really, really love their Gamera, MST3k added, with their jokes and tone, 4.1 points of value to the movie. That's pretty damn transformative in experience. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. They literally doubled the value of Gamera

Remove the movie and what's the value of the commentary without it?


About the same if you removed all the oil paint from the Mona lisa.
 
2013-12-12 06:38:16 PM  

Kinek: Lumbar Puncture: Kinek: So, either MST3k fans really, really love their Gamera, MST3k added, with their jokes and tone, 4.1 points of value to the movie. That's pretty damn transformative in experience. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. They literally doubled the value of Gamera

Remove the movie and what's the value of the commentary without it?

About the same if you removed all the oil paint from the Mona lisa.


That's some apples to apples shiat right there.
 
2013-12-12 06:38:23 PM  

Geotpf:1. It doesn't work in real time, so a video can be up for weeks or months before it gets flagged.

Wrong. Completely wrong. That daddy-daughter dance video that I uploaded was flagged and muted before it finished processing.

Lumbar Puncture: I think video games should have the same protection of other created works, and adding commentary does not make it something I'd consider transformative.


Why not? These people aren't allowing others to play the game. The are not giving people the same experience as purchasing it as they get from watching someone's commentary of it. They transform it by changing and adding to the product to completely alter the experience. Are you saying that playing a game yourself and watching someone else play is the same exact thing? Songs in the games are no different. Listening to a song as part of an album or even an individual track is not the same thing as the song being on in the background while someone else narrates, critiques, and commentates something that includes the song.

You're saying that watching someone's commentary of a product is the same thing as using the product yourself. Hell, let's get even simpler. You're saying that watching MST3K is the same experience as watching the movies features as a standalone film. And continuing on that you're saying that RiffTrax does not transform the movie experience. The entire product exists because it transforms the product.

Copyright law as it stands is terrible and needs to change.
 The games in question are not the focus of these videos. They are a tool used to create a new and unique experience. You seem to be unable to see the forest through the trees here. The hammer analogy is the same. It's a tool used to transform something else for monetary gain.


If commentary does no transform a product and this is in violation of copyright then you'd also see most magazines in existence as non transformative and in violation of copyright. Road and Track, Golf Digest, Men's Health, Cosmo, etc. Most of what they do is comment and critique other people's copyrighted and protected works. What's the difference? According to you, commentary does not transform a work. They should all shut down.

IGN, 1UP, etc are video gaming sites that have a large portion of their content as video game reviews and critiques. Videos included. Commentary over gameplay. They are also in violation, according to you.
 
2013-12-12 06:39:18 PM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: About time...

...collection of sweaty neckbeards huffing and "umm"ing into dimestore mics displaying far too much emotional investment...


Sucks that you are forced to watch them.
 
2013-12-12 06:39:37 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Kinek: I think you misunderstand the argument that I'm trying to make. Giving artists distribution rights is an INCENTIVE. Not a means to an end. You seem to view it as an end, with the enrichment of the public domain being a secondary byproduct

No I'm okay with that too.


Incentive here implies optional. Oil on the gears. It isn't mandatory. There's no moral right.
 
2013-12-12 06:39:58 PM  
Bah let's face it, most "Let's Play" videos suck.  45 minutes of heavy breathing and "Uh, yeah, uh...."


I just wish Google would undo whatever the hell that they did to Youtube.  I miss being able to pause a video and walk way, only to watch my video in HD.

Now?  Unpause it and you get a stuttering, halting video that ends up only playing at whatever lowest resolution they offer.  Reminds me of RealPlayer.  Buffering....
 
2013-12-12 06:41:59 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Kinek: Lumbar Puncture: Kinek: So, either MST3k fans really, really love their Gamera, MST3k added, with their jokes and tone, 4.1 points of value to the movie. That's pretty damn transformative in experience. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. They literally doubled the value of Gamera

Remove the movie and what's the value of the commentary without it?

About the same if you removed all the oil paint from the Mona lisa.

That's some apples to apples shiat right there.


Do you know what Appropriation art is? Are you saying they create nothing but derivative (In the most vulgar artistic term) art?
 
2013-12-12 06:48:05 PM  
LOLL I HOPE THIS TAUGHT THOSE YOUTUBE NERD'S A LESSON AND IT'S CALLED "STOP JERKIGN OFF TOO POKEMANZ" AND GET A REAL JOB.  GOOD LUCK GETTING MY JOB WITHOUT ANY REAL JOB EXPERIENCE LOLL.  THEY DON'T LET JUST ANYONE AT MCDONALD'S BECOME A CASHIER
 
2013-12-12 06:49:36 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: Why not? These people aren't allowing others to play the game. The are not giving people the same experience as purchasing it as they get from watching someone's commentary of it. They transform it by changing and adding to the product to completely alter the experience. Are you saying that playing a game yourself and watching someone else play is the same exact thing? Songs in the games are no different. Listening to a song as part of an album or even an individual track is not the same thing as the song being on in the background while someone else narrates, critiques, and commentates something that includes the son


I'm saying that games are more than just input, it's art, voice acting, direction, music, design, etc.  Displaying the entire game publicly without compensation or permission by the content creators I think is wrong.  Clips?  Strategies?  Reviews?  Fair use.  A whole game?  Nope.

CtrlAltDestroy: You're saying that watching someone's commentary of a product is the same thing as using the product yourself. Hell, let's get even simpler. You're saying that watching MST3K is the same experience as watching the movies features as a standalone film. And continuing on that you're saying that RiffTrax does not transform the movie experience. The entire product exists because it transforms the product.


Actually I'm not.  I'm saying they don't alter the original film enough to be considered transformative enough to hijack the right to redistribute the film just because they told jokes over it.

Rifftrax provides an alternate experience to the film, but again requires the film in it's original form in order to work so it does not transform it.

CtrlAltDestroy: If commentary does no transform a product and this is in violation of copyright then you'd also see most magazines in existence as non transformative and in violation of copyright. Road and Track, Golf Digest, Men's Health, Cosmo, etc. Most of what they do is comment and critique other people's copyrighted and protected works. What's the difference? According to you, commentary does not transform a work. They should all shut down.


Fair Use, which I've not argued against at all and in fact have mentioned that the Youtube algorithm goes too far in taking down videos that do not violate copyright.  If you're going to put words in my mouth at least know what I'm saying, they way you took my comments and somehow made them something else would be a transformative work though, so congrats!


Look, if you or anyone else disagree with me that they Let's Play videos shouldn't need to compensate or get permission of the creators of the game, then we disagree.  No amount of shiatty analogies or 'if you mean this than you must mean something hyperbolic' is going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your opinion on the matter either.  I'm bored now, so if it helps, you win and I'm wrong!  I just hope none of you create something and then see it used by someone else for their financial gain without your permission because that would suck.
 
2013-12-12 06:50:04 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: However I wonder how you would feel if you created a song, sold it, and then found out someone took it, mashed it up with another song, and was making money from it. Maybe you wouldn't care. If I spent my time and energy creating that, I would.


I wouldn't care. Good for them. They took my work, changed it to something I never thought of, and is rolling with it. I'd like a credit for the original work that they'd be using but that's it. And anyone who is able to see the bigger picture will realize that a modified version of a creative work will almost always create more interest in the the original creation. Someone modifying your work and drawing attention to it benefits you.

Hell, I learned about my absolute favorite music artist because, gasp!, I heard the song in a fan made music video. A mash up with a movie with a similar theme to the music. It worked out quite well. From there I researched the artist. I've since purchased every album, limited press vinyls, seen them in concert every single time they come near me in the past several years, and purchased merch (including more expensive limited edition items) directly from the artist themselves. As in, I walked up to their merch table told the guys in the band what I wanted, they gave me the items, I gave them cash, shook their hand, got a pic, and off I went.

I've given this particular artist hundred of dollars, will end up giving them hundreds more, half of which was/will be in person directly into their hands, all because I watched a farking mash up video.
 
2013-12-12 06:52:48 PM  

Kinek: Do you know what Appropriation art is? Are you saying they create nothing but derivative (In the most vulgar artistic term) art

?

I'm saying that their work only works when displaying the film in it's original form with their commentary on top of it.  They don't change or alter it in any significant fashion.  I'd bet that they'd agree that their commentary doesn't give them the right to the original content or it's distribution.

Even if they made Starship Troopers watchable earlier this year.  I love those guys but it only works because the original is bad, their commentary doesn't make the film itself better.
 
2013-12-12 06:53:48 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: I wouldn't care. Good for them.


Cool.  I would.  You'd have the right to allow them to do so, while I'd have the right to restrict my work.  Awesome to have those options, ain't it?
 
2013-12-12 06:57:10 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Kinek: Do you know what Appropriation art is? Are you saying they create nothing but derivative (In the most vulgar artistic term) art?

I'm saying that their work only works when displaying the film in it's original form with their commentary on top of it.  They don't change or alter it in any significant fashion.  I'd bet that they'd agree that their commentary doesn't give them the right to the original content or it's distribution.

Even if they made Starship Troopers watchable earlier this year.  I love those guys but it only works because the original is bad, their commentary doesn't make the film itself better.


The IMDB scores say differently.
 
2013-12-12 06:59:30 PM  
Interesting look at this from Boogie2988(aka Francis)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIh6t0d_MuA
 
2013-12-12 07:02:23 PM  

Kinek: The IMDB scores say differently


What did they change of the film?  Is it a giant cactus now instead of a turtle or did the original movie remain intact with their commentary over it?
 
2013-12-12 07:04:53 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: I'm saying that games are more than just input, it's art, voice acting, direction, music, design, etc. Displaying the entire game publicly without compensation or permission by the content creators I think is wrong. Clips? Strategies? Reviews? Fair use. A whole game? Nope.


How much is too much? What's the limit? How much commentating vs gameplay footage? If you want to go this route you need to have hard boundaries.

Besides, fair use includes commentary.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections  17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

What's wrong with commentating the whole game? You are obviously not a gamer. Watching a Let's Play or other form of commentary is in no way shape or form comparable to playing the game yourself. Only a non gamer would try to say that seeing and hearing the voice acting, music, etc is enough to be comparable to actually playing the game. This notion of yours is absurd. These two things are simply not comparable at all. Being in control and having to make all of the decisions, reactions, button presses, etc is the very core of playing a game. I don't care if you don't like analogies. They're very useful in showing how ridiculous something is. You're saying that watching someone drive stick is the same as actually driving stick. After all, you get to see the layout of the interior and hear the engine and whatnot.

Lumbar Puncture: I'm bored now, so if it helps, you win and I'm wrong!


Being condescending will only make people take you less seriously and thus compromise the effectiveness of your arguments. It's also terribly immature.

Lumbar Puncture: I just hope none of you create something and then see it used by someone else for their financial gain without your permission


I hope that I do, too. Because, like I said, it wouldn't bother me. My original product will receive more attention and it would be flattering as hell. There is no downside here. Someone else modifying my work into something new will only benefit me.
 
2013-12-12 07:05:31 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Kinek: The IMDB scores say differently

What did they change of the film?  Is it a giant cactus now instead of a turtle or did the original movie remain intact with their commentary over it?


Actually ignore that.  Your point and my point are missing each other by miles and we're not going to see eye to eye on this.  I respect your opinion that you believe it does transform the original into something new, but I disagree with it, which is the basis of my opinion on the matter of Let's Play videos as well. May Gamera be with you.
 
2013-12-12 07:09:41 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: Besides, fair use includes commentary.


Not over an entire work distributed publicly without permission!

CtrlAltDestroy: You are obviously not a gamer


Is this an insult?  Do we whip out our gamerscore penises now?  I don't know what's going on.
 
2013-12-12 07:11:57 PM  

fluffy2097: Are we so lazy as a nation now we have to watch other people play video games for us?

/Ban Mod Horror


Even worse when the game is The Sims.
 
2013-12-12 07:13:12 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: CtrlAltDestroy: I wouldn't care. Good for them.

Cool.  I would.  You'd have the right to allow them to do so, while I'd have the right to restrict my work.  Awesome to have those options, ain't it?


You completely ignored the part of that post where I mention how someone doing so is good for you. I get the feeling that this is more about how it makes you feel then the actual outcome of said actions. You're coming off like a control freak. As in, this seems like a topic that you're reacting to emotionally instead of rationally. You, time and time again, throw out the logic of how this kind of thing isn't harmful and your arguments are based around someone else making money without your permission.

If that person never make the modified part of your work, then you get no additional money. If they do and don't cut you checks you get no additional money from them, but you do get money because of the increased attention that your work is receiving. Just like my example with me and my favorite music artist. Why did you ignore that very real world example of how this type of thing is beneficial to the original artists? Youtube Let's Plays are also responsible for video game purchases, AAA titles and indie, that I would have otherwise never purchased. How is that a bad thing or something worth removing for the future?

Respond to that last paragraph directly and in it's entirely or be written off as a person with no interest in rational debate.

Although, I thought that you were bored and going to leave. Looks like that was just a snide, condescending remark. Luckily, I'm not intimidated by such things.
 
2013-12-12 07:14:09 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Lumbar Puncture: Kinek: The IMDB scores say differently

What did they change of the film?  Is it a giant cactus now instead of a turtle or did the original movie remain intact with their commentary over it?

Actually ignore that.  Your point and my point are missing each other by miles and we're not going to see eye to eye on this.  I respect your opinion that you believe it does transform the original into something new, but I disagree with it, which is the basis of my opinion on the matter of Let's Play videos as well. May Gamera be with you.


May your days be blessed with Kenny.
 
2013-12-12 07:17:18 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Not over an entire work distributed publicly without permission!


Citation needed. WITH citation of the limits of percent of total product to be used.

Lumbar Puncture: s this an insult? Do we whip out our gamerscore penises now? I don't know what's going on.


The point is that one cannot effectively argue on a point which one is not familiar with. It's as ridiculous as the Republicans using a panel of only men to make decisions about a woman's personal, gender specific health. You're lack of ability in understanding why a Let's Play is a transformative work, which only comes from intimate knowledge of the works in question, makes you ill equipped to argue this point.
 
2013-12-12 07:19:58 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: Respond to that last paragraph directly and in it's entirely or be written off as a person with no interest in rational debate.


This sentence made this thread worth it alone.  Respond or be written off as a person!

CtrlAltDestroy: If that person never make the modified part of your work, then you get no additional money. If they do and don't cut you checks you get no additional money from them, but you do get money because of the increased attention that your work is receiving. Just like my example with me and my favorite music artist. Why did you ignore that very real world example of how this type of thing is beneficial to the original artists? Youtube Let's Plays are also responsible for video game purchases, AAA titles and indie, that I would have otherwise never purchased. How is that a bad thing or something worth removing for the future?


I never said that it wouldn't be beneficial for the original creator, only that the original creator has the right to choose how their work is redistributed.  You are absolutely correct that it would be a control thing, if I create something I would like to have the ability to either control the distribution of that content I created or sign over those right for what I feel is worth it to me.  I didn't ignore a very real world example, there are those publishers, such as Deep Silver, that give permission freely for those who would like to do Let's Play videos.  Others request that they just don't monetize it or contact them for permission.

I think that's a great thing for people to help spread the word, as long as they ask permission from the creator or copyright holder to do so!  How is it a bad thing that people respect the creators of the content that they want to use?

Answer or be forever denied into the halls of Valhalla.
 
2013-12-12 07:24:01 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: This sentence made this thread worth it alone. Respond or be written off as a person!


Aaaand you failed. Expecting a logical response to clear points being made in an argument is what makes a debate possible. Conveniently ignoring the points which weaken your argument is cowardly and not in the spirit of a debate. Trolls and people who refuse to be wrong are the ones who ignore what they don't want to acknowledge. I have not read beyond this line. You failed to actually engage in a logical conversation. As such, I'm holding up to my end of the bargain and will no longer see any of your posts.

I pity anyone who has to interact with you on a regular basis.

Goodbye and good riddance.
 
2013-12-12 07:24:10 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: Citation needed. WITH citation of the limits of percent of total product to be used


3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Read the rest yourself.

CtrlAltDestroy: The point is that one cannot effectively argue on a point which one is not familiar with.


I'm familiar with what we're arguing on, I was mocking that you assumed I wasn't a gamer because I chose to respect the artistic collaboration involved and for some reason tried to write my position off as irrelevant because of experience.  Only consoles I don't own are the Xbox One, WiiU, and PS4 because I've got a backlog of about 50 games.  What I'm saying so you don't have to put words in my mouth is that in your Republican analogy I have a vagina just like you.
 
2013-12-12 07:25:05 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: Aaaand you failed. Expecting a logical response to clear points being made in an argument is what makes a debate possible. Conveniently ignoring the points which weaken your argument is cowardly and not in the spirit of a debate. Trolls and people who refuse to be wrong are the ones who ignore what they don't want to acknowledge. I have not read beyond this line. You failed to actually engage in a logical conversation. As such, I'm holding up to my end of the bargain and will no longer see any of your posts.

I pity anyone who has to interact with you on a regular basis.

Goodbye and good riddance


I responded to your request seriously.  You failed to respond to mine.

You are not allowed into Valhalla.
 
2013-12-12 08:12:40 PM  
For about a month now, I've discovered and watched at least half of Dan Hardcastle's videos (Nerd³)

But the past week has been hell, because he's had to stop making the gameplay videos, and planning moves to go elsewhere. it's just a pity because YouTube is just so damn accessible, I can watch youtube videos on any connected device I own, I can't say the same for any other video sharing service.
 
2013-12-12 09:05:39 PM  

MylesHeartVodak: I just wish Google would undo whatever the hell that they did to Youtube. I miss being able to pause a video and walk way, only to watch my video in HD.

Now? Unpause it and you get a stuttering, halting video that ends up only playing at whatever lowest resolution they offer. Reminds me of RealPlayer. Buffering....


There have been some really user-hostile things going on at YouTube over the past two months.

Your problem is likely that they have nuked the HTML-served 1080p MP4 (video+audio) videos and the best you can do over straight HTTP is 720p. To get 1080p, you(r browser) must use DASH (Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP) to fetch the 1080p MP4 video and the M4A audio, and then remux separately.

Earlier this week, previously-existing audio streams that were once available as 256kbps DASH audio have been downgraded to 128kbps.
 
2013-12-13 01:37:43 AM  
YouTube is an essential step in purchasing a video game.
The game companies know this and want to get as much publicity as possible to sell more.
I think this will lead to Google getting protection money from them so their videos are not removed.
 
2013-12-13 03:37:40 AM  
I honestly feel bad for anyone who gets screwed out of their livelihood over this.

Having to work in the real world sucks, and even worse is having to FIND work in the real world. In this crappy country these crappy days, it's friggin' difficult.

 Welcome to hell.
 
2013-12-13 08:02:57 AM  
I wonder if the same dickhead(s) behind the requirement for a Google+ account to comment, the ability to hyperlink in comments, and all the other general asshattery on YouTube over the last year is behind this?

If so, either fire their ass(es) or just hit the goddamn self-destruct button.

Let's Players have just about created a whole job market for themselves, one that exploded since the recession.  These people found a revenue stream to support themselves when there were no jobs to be found, freeing up the few jobs there were open for others who lacked the charismatic elements that make a Let's Player successful.  Youtube provided them this path, and now have slowly transformed it into a hostile work environment.  YOutube's made money hand over fist with these people, and now bites the hand that feeds...
 
Displayed 50 of 205 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report