Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 516
  1. #41
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,758
    Quote Originally Posted by c-Row View Post
    If 20 minutes are a substantial portion of your game, something is wrong with it.
    I can think of counter examples, but I don't think Day One: Garry's Incident would end up on that list.
    I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

    You ruined his point by putting it in context thatís cheating -bull0

  2. #42
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus c-Row's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Anus Mundi, Germany
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by gwathdring View Post
    I can think of counter examples, but I don't think Day One: Garry's Incident would end up on that list.
    It was more aimed towards Garry's Incident indeed.
    - If the sound of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings" makes you think of Kharak burning instead of the Vietnamese jungle, most of your youth happened during the 90s. -

  3. #43
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    england
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by trjp View Post
    Copyright is the 'right' to determine who gets to 'copy' a work - taking footage of a game and putting it on YouTube is 'copying' someone's work and you need the 'right' to do that.

    Fair-use exists to protect people who wish to criticise/commentate/parody forms of media - as someone said, it's not quite as simple as it sounds but in theory you are fine using images/video/sounds from a game/film/album/whatever for those reasons.

    As for monetising your work - copyright isn't interested and doesn't care about that aspect of it at all. Copyright covers your 'right' to 'copy' something irrespective of whether you earn money from it or otherwise.

    In this case, of course, the ONLY reason we're talking about copyright is because that's the lazy and easy way to get Google to remove videos from YouTube - the developers have made it crystal-clear they don't consider this a 'copyright issue' so they've as-much-as-admitted lying to Google just to get the video removed - which isn't a winning way to start, is it?
    But its not copying "the work" is it. TB hasn't put a hacked version of the game up on his website. It's showing the game through another medium,in this case video. If someone does a film review that has stills from the film and quoted dialogue is that a copy? A video of a game seems the same thing.

  4. #44
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Tritagonist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    One thing I will say against TB - his entire video is effectively "I want to protect my source of income" which is, ironically, what the knee-jerk removal demand tried to accomplish.
    The videos Mr. Biscuit listed in his video suggest that WGS doesn't mind monetized videos of their game. It doesn't ring true, then, to suggest that WGS set out to accomplish the removal of the video because it was monetized.

    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    TB can wrap it up in "freedom of the press" and blah blah as much as he likes, but the frequent references to monetisation of videos and "Youtube has changed the media!" shows his true motivations.
    Why are you making a distinction? Can't it be both? If anything, Mr. Biscuit is always droning on - sometimes annoyingly and repetitively so - about the role of a free and critical press in the gaming scene. It's not the first, or even the tenth, time he brings this up. It actually seems to me as though he went out of his way not to talk about it too much this time, and focussed on the dubious practises of WGS, which were in his eyes sufficient to make his point. And yes, of course he wants to protect his source of income, why wouldn't he?

    This also gives me a great excuse to post this again:

    "He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
    the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~
    Luke 4:18

  5. #45
    Network Hub Squirly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Tritagonist View Post
    Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir.

  6. #46
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,276
    Freedom of the press also includes landing that big scoop with less barriers and getting that big bag of money that comes from other media buying your scoop and interviews.

    While Game Informer is simply free to GameStop premium members and used as an advertising platform, they still get a lot of first reveals which makes a lot of people reference quite a lot. RPS gets an exclusive interview and they probably get a lot more hits for that article since a lot of other game media is referencing them.

  7. #47
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,378
    Quote Originally Posted by karaquazian View Post
    But its not copying "the work" is it. TB hasn't put a hacked version of the game up on his website.
    Copyright goes beyond just "copying a game" or "copying music" - imagine if you bought a CD, ripped-it, made it into a 'still' video and posted it to YouTube - would that be the same because it's not "copying"!?

    What if you recorded yourself saying "ommmmm" 20 times throughout the song - not 'copying' anymore?

    Copyright is complicated - your take is way-off.
    Last edited by trjp; 21-10-2013 at 03:04 PM.

  8. #48
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,378
    I'm guessing some already posted TB's response here?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfgoDDh4kE0

    I can't help thinking that's very TB - it's OTT, opinionated and he opens himself to multiple legal actions by accusing them of astroturfing, bribing people and manipulating Kickstarter.

    If I was his lawyer I'd be banging my head on my desk right now - I said he should handle it carefully but, as I suspected, he's outside juggling pinless hand grenades...

    It isn't going to end well for anyone now, I suspect :(

  9. #49
    Activated Node tedesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    MŁnchen
    Posts
    64
    Calm down.

    They're not the evil empire (EA, Sega, etc) with legions of lawyers to crucify TB.

  10. #50
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,694
    Quote Originally Posted by trjp View Post
    What he says isn't really relevant (tho it's useful mitigating evidence) - fair use is there to allow criticism, commentary and parody and whilst you can challenge how far people take that, that's what fair use is for.
    That's the key bit though. You can make the Fair Use argument either way, and that's because is not a specific enshrined right in the US legal system. Rather, it's a defense that you can use if you are accused of copyright infringement. It's based on a huge number of factors, but crucially can only be determined by a court.

    Now I'm not saying it's good that the law works that way, but like it or not, it's how it works. You don't get to say "this is clearly covered by fair use". That decision is for a court. And in this case, the publisher has every right to have that decision made by a court if they wish. To do so, they claim copyright infringement, TB uses the fair use defense, and the court rule on it. That is how it is set up to work. Fair Use is a defense, not a right like 'free speech'. Even if you think there's no way this wouldn't fall under Fair Use, the publisher is allowed to take it court to have it determined there, if they are willing to pay.

    Obviously how YouTube's copyright procedures fit in with this is a whole other kettle of fish, and again, I'm not defending the publisher by saying what they're doing is okay, just that legally, it's correct. And I know for sure that if it were my livelihood at risk I'd make damn sure to get some agreement from publishers in writing before I used their stuff, especially if I were going to be slagging of their game and possibly annoying them.

    And of course, TB's response video is just whining about the bad company, and saying something must be done, rather than actually suggesting doing anything.

  11. #51
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,378
    Quote Originally Posted by tedesco View Post
    Calm down.

    They're not the evil empire (EA, Sega, etc) with legions of lawyers to crucify TB.
    No - but instead of calmly going through the (should be simple) process of getting the copyright claim taken down and making them look 'wrong', he's gone on the offensive and actually made them look 'possibly right'.

    The way he's talking in the video is basically saying "sue me" and if they chose to do so, he'd
    a - have a legal bill the size of Texas
    b - lose

    He's really not the journalistic-type is he? He reminds me of another person (Bruce Everiss) in another place (RLLMUK) - so convinced he's right and unable to see that accusing people stuff without things like 'proof' and without understanding 'the law' can get you into deep shit (and make you look 'wrong' when you were actually right).

    You can't turn a lot of "Internet accusations" into something you directly accuse people of and not expect repercussions - by doing-so he's almost justified their decision to have his video taken-down as he's clearly showing a bias towards them - indeed he could even be said to be 'malicious' in his latest video which could easily suggest he was being 'malicious' in the earlier one - which would mean their copyright claim had merit because criticism is one thing and attacking people is something else.

    It's hard to imagine that he could handle this more poorly than he has - I don't really care if his livelihood is ruined, I DO care if the livelihood of other people who do First Looks etc. is harmed - he needs to stop waving his arms about like a tit.

    I've described TB, in the past, as that kid who was always in the computer game store. Perhaps he worked there, perhaps not - you could never be sure - but he had an opinion on EVERYTHING and would deliver it, at length, to anyone and everyone at any time :)

  12. #52
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Jesus_Phish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    4,324
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    And of course, TB's response video is just whining about the bad company, and saying something must be done, rather than actually suggesting doing anything.
    I think his suggestion is that Youtube needs to update it's copyright claims process to stop it being so easy for companies to shut down channels. He even says it at the end "I'm asking Google" and asks people to share it around so it get's noticed. Apart from suggesting Youtube/Google do this, there's not a whole lot he can actually do.

    Suppose he could go to the Youtube headquarters and sit outside with a candle on an iPad but that won't really achieve much.
    "Halo is designed to make the player think "I look like that, I am macho sitting in my undies with my xbox""

    Steam ID

  13. #53
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,378
    Google aren't going to change Youtube - other than trying to fathom how to make more money from it.

    End of the day they have to respond to copyright claims - the issue is that their default action is to assume the claimant is right and there's no penalty for making a false claim.

    Youtube accounts get 3 strikes - claimants should, IMO, get 3 claims. If you foul those up - Google stop listening :)

  14. #54
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by trjp View Post
    Google aren't going to change Youtube - other than trying to fathom how to make more money from it.

    End of the day they have to respond to copyright claims - the issue is that their default action is to assume the claimant is right and there's no penalty for making a false claim.

    Youtube accounts get 3 strikes - claimants should, IMO, get 3 claims. If you foul those up - Google stop listening :)
    3 anything seems way too simplistic than it should be. Google ought to have a clear appeal process and the will to investigate disputes.

  15. #55
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,758
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    That's the key bit though. You can make the Fair Use argument either way, and that's because is not a specific enshrined right in the US legal system. Rather, it's a defense that you can use if you are accused of copyright infringement. It's based on a huge number of factors, but crucially can only be determined by a court.

    Now I'm not saying it's good that the law works that way, but like it or not, it's how it works. You don't get to say "this is clearly covered by fair use". That decision is for a court. And in this case, the publisher has every right to have that decision made by a court if they wish. To do so, they claim copyright infringement, TB uses the fair use defense, and the court rule on it. That is how it is set up to work. Fair Use is a defense, not a right like 'free speech'. Even if you think there's no way this wouldn't fall under Fair Use, the publisher is allowed to take it court to have it determined there, if they are willing to pay.
    The defense vs. right thing doesn't make any sense. I could make exactly the same distinction, practically speaking, with many instances of free speech. It's a legal allowance, exception, loophole ... whatever you want to call it ... in copyright law. I wouldn't call it a "right" in the sense of "bill of rights," but in a more colloquial sense "right" is perfectly accurate and "defense" is neither an accurate colloquial or legal distinction for what fair use is.

    In theory, fair use ought to work outside a court of law too! It's just ... well, broad, complicated and vague laws end up getting tested in court. Guess what, the same thing happens for pretty much everything that's considered a "right," too! Free speech, freedom of the press, the right to representation, the right to speedy trial, I could go own. Every darn one shows up in court over and over and over. Thus is the way of a system that relies, at least in part, on common law.

    But. Common law or no, the laws stand on their own. We might need advice from a court to interpret them, but the law of the land is Fair Use. Fair Use applies with or without court action. You can totally cry Fair Use without a court deciding on it. Companies are totally beholden to Fair Use without a court deciding on it. But the law is so vague, courts tend to be a nice place to settle fair use issues--or would be if it weren't so damned expensive to do that.

    As a result, I'm sure if your use fell plainly enough under fair use and someone gave you shit over it in public and/or in court, you could turn around and sue them for damages.
    Last edited by gwathdring; 21-10-2013 at 05:54 PM.
    I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

    You ruined his point by putting it in context thatís cheating -bull0

  16. #56
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,378
    Quote Originally Posted by mouton View Post
    3 anything seems way too simplistic than it should be. Google ought to have a clear appeal process and the will to investigate disputes.
    Problem is that Google cannot adjudicate this stuff - it takes lawyers and courts to do it.

    Copyright holders are notoriously slapshot - there was a piece of Digg recently where copyright holders were sending huge lists of blocked URLS to places like Google and when someone looked at them, they were asking to block things which were nothing to do with their copyright whatsoever (auto-generated lists catching allsorts of stuff)

    At the moment the system is 'those with the more expensive lawyers, win by default"

  17. #57
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    617
    Quote Originally Posted by trjp View Post
    No - but instead of calmly going through the (should be simple) process of getting the copyright claim taken down and making them look 'wrong', he's gone on the offensive and actually made them look 'possibly right'.

    The way he's talking in the video is basically saying "sue me" and if they chose to do so, he'd
    a - have a legal bill the size of Texas
    b - lose

    He's really not the journalistic-type is he? He reminds me of another person (Bruce Everiss) in another place (RLLMUK) - so convinced he's right and unable to see that accusing people stuff without things like 'proof' and without understanding 'the law' can get you into deep shit (and make you look 'wrong' when you were actually right).

    You can't turn a lot of "Internet accusations" into something you directly accuse people of and not expect repercussions - by doing-so he's almost justified their decision to have his video taken-down as he's clearly showing a bias towards them - indeed he could even be said to be 'malicious' in his latest video which could easily suggest he was being 'malicious' in the earlier one - which would mean their copyright claim had merit because criticism is one thing and attacking people is something else.

    It's hard to imagine that he could handle this more poorly than he has - I don't really care if his livelihood is ruined, I DO care if the livelihood of other people who do First Looks etc. is harmed - he needs to stop waving his arms about like a tit.

    I've described TB, in the past, as that kid who was always in the computer game store. Perhaps he worked there, perhaps not - you could never be sure - but he had an opinion on EVERYTHING and would deliver it, at length, to anyone and everyone at any time :)
    Your assumption is wrong, though, because removing the copyright claim is ridiculously complicated and often doesn't work out. The only reason his channel currently is still up is that he managed to get Sega themselves to retract the copyright claims on some of his videos. Other channels, smaller channels, without the legal team he had access to through TGS actually shut down. The whole copyright thing on YouTube is so heavily slanted towards corporations it's not even funny, and video makers have little to no recourse. Since fair use is a gray area, I think he'd have lost any sort of appeal he would've tried with YouTube.

    With this video, he instead makes the developer look utterly foolish, raises awareness around their bad practices, and hurts their bottom line; remember, those are indie devs, not a big corporation. Their sales HIGHLY depend on their reputation, and this just hurt them a lot. In my opinion, it serves them right too. You can disagree with criticism, you can put up a counter video or article, you can contact the critic, but you don't try to shut it down.

  18. #58
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by FriendlyFire View Post
    Your assumption is wrong, though, because removing the copyright claim is ridiculously complicated and often doesn't work out. The only reason his channel currently is still up is that he managed to get Sega themselves to retract the copyright claims on some of his videos. Other channels, smaller channels, without the legal team he had access to through TGS actually shut down. The whole copyright thing on YouTube is so heavily slanted towards corporations it's not even funny, and video makers have little to no recourse. Since fair use is a gray area, I think he'd have lost any sort of appeal he would've tried with YouTube.

    With this video, he instead makes the developer look utterly foolish, raises awareness around their bad practices, and hurts their bottom line; remember, those are indie devs, not a big corporation. Their sales HIGHLY depend on their reputation, and this just hurt them a lot. In my opinion, it serves them right too. You can disagree with criticism, you can put up a counter video or article, you can contact the critic, but you don't try to shut it down.
    The copyright issues are heavily slanted toward those who own the copyrights. I am SURE tb would throw a hissy fit if people ganked his videos too.

    That being said, all of this is just another reason why the legal and property owning system needs to be amended to consider the internet. Should reviewers be penalized now because they have a better way to convey information? In the old days, they just had text in a magazine. Then websites with screenshots. Now they can actually show the gameplay itself, which is the thing most of us wanted anyway (I mostly watch TB because even when I disagree with him, he shows the actual game).

    Or think of it like this: It is becoming more and more popular to broadcast college classes online. I know that during my high school english classes the teacher would show movies based on books and have us analyze it and consider why certain changes were made during adaptation, and I assume people who choose fake majors in college have classes that do that too :p. Should those be viewed as copyright infringement, just because the professor is telling the internet why Macbeth's shoes were purple rather than a room full of students?

    Quote Originally Posted by trjp View Post
    I've described TB, in the past, as that kid who was always in the computer game store. Perhaps he worked there, perhaps not - you could never be sure - but he had an opinion on EVERYTHING and would deliver it, at length, to anyone and everyone at any time :)
    The commentator has an opinion that he shares with people who are looking at his youtube channel or twitter? Wow, TB is clearly a cunt...
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  19. #59
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Jesus_Phish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    4,324
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    The commentator has an opinion that he shares with people who are looking at his youtube channel or twitter? Wow, TB is clearly a cunt...
    This made me laugh a good bit.

    People should be happy that he's on youtube and not at your local gamestop or comic store telling you why you shouldn't be buying x game and y comic.
    "Halo is designed to make the player think "I look like that, I am macho sitting in my undies with my xbox""

    Steam ID

  20. #60
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,758
    Quote Originally Posted by trjp View Post
    Problem is that Google cannot adjudicate this stuff - it takes lawyers and courts to do it.

    Copyright holders are notoriously slapshot - there was a piece of Digg recently where copyright holders were sending huge lists of blocked URLS to places like Google and when someone looked at them, they were asking to block things which were nothing to do with their copyright whatsoever (auto-generated lists catching allsorts of stuff)

    At the moment the system is 'those with the more expensive lawyers, win by default"
    Nonsense. Google can totally adjudicate this. That doesn't mean they'll get it right every time, but they could provide a system that doesn't disproportionately favor the people with the power to squash individual customers. What's the point in using google services if they have no respect for you as a customer? They aren't the only free video service out there. Not that the other ones are necessarily that much better about it. :\ Well done google, I'm settling for you. Be proud!

    The New York Times protects it's sources even when it's legally questionable to do so, and they on occasionally fight all the way to court to keep their sources protected. Google doesn't do things this way because it's complicated. They do things this way because they're more interested in appeasing major companies than taking care of us. The law being complicated is no excuse to abuse it. Companies use it as an excuse, but it's a shit excuse and we need to start creating penalties for consistent abuse of the legal system to muscle in on people who don't know enough or can't afford enough to do anything about it.

    It's a bad system that needs reworking, but even within the context of that system we're doing things badly and Google is part of the problem. For many, many years companies have worked out Fair Use policies that make this sort of thing explicit. Books companies, music companies ... they have a variety of policies and agreements with us and with each other that allow us to do certain things that they've agreed to automatically ignore as Fair Use; they know a court would see it as fair use in a heart beat so they reassure us that it's ok to go ahead and do that. Some record labels have a fair use document buried on their website that gives you clip lengths they consider acceptable based on the length of the song as well as forms for the aforementioned compulsory cover licenses and so forth. Google has the muscle to work out guidelines with media corporations--or even privately with it's own legal team. Anyone who meets the guidelines is promised Google's protection. Anyone who doesn't should have an appeal process available to them but perhaps that's a pipe dream. What frustrates me is that Google's trying to be hands off here, but legal bills aside they screw people. Google has a right to remove my video from their service for whatever reason ... the real spat is between me and a third party, but that third party has only indirectly communicated with me. Standing in a case like this is a mess.

    At the end of the day, Google is a private company so they have a legal right to restrict what content goes up on their system. But in practice? They run public spaces. Between companies like Google and ISPs ... our right to create, speak, and assemble in this digital age is threatened by behaviors that, superficially, seem perfectly legitimate for a private entity.
    I think of [the Internet] as a grisly raw steak laid out on a porcelain benchtop in the sun, covered in chocolate hazelnut sauce. In the background plays Stardustís Music Sounds Better With You. Thereís lots of fog. --tomeoftom

    You ruined his point by putting it in context thatís cheating -bull0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •