Where Youtube is going

[Malcador]

Interesting proposal, Amentep. Let's say the content creators who have been winning via Youtube succeed in turning people off it. Some other site automatedly gloms the creator's videos and puts them on their own site, and gives nothing to the creator besides saying it is for "educational purposes".

 

People might not go to that site.  LPs aren't really a substitute for one playing a game.

[Orogun01]

 

 

The pertinent exception is "Fair Use," which I'm no expert on, but which covers stuff like Orogun's point above about playing an album when people who didn't buy it are present.  It almost certainly doesn't cover uploading something wholesale and profiting on the clicks it draws.  The statute is a bit amorphous, and that ambiguity works against Youtube.  They don't have the time to consider each upload on its merits, so they rely on the (often overly broad) assertions of rights holders. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I was told (so it's likely to be wrong) the arguement is that LP's generally fall under Commentary, Satire and Review, which would be fair use.

 

EDIT: It's a ridiculously bad idea to mess with Let's Plays anyway, since 90% of my game purchases are based on "I saw an LP of a game that looked fun" and I'm not the only one (for example, the only reason Amnesia was remotely successful is because there were a lot of videos of people getting their pants scared off on YouTube).

 

 

Technically, fair use covers excerpting certain elements of a work in order to comment about it.

 

The late Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel could use clips of movies in their review show to give context to their review, but they couldn't show you the movie on tv commenting on it the whole time without having arranged to broadcast the movie.

 

Similarly shows that did provide commentary (MST3K, for example) did so on public domain movies or else with the rights holder permissions to broadcast the copyright work.

 

I'm a bit curious if people who made "Let's play" videos would be okay with someone capturing them all off YouTube and putting them on their own website?  Would it matter if the creator was credited?  Would it matter if the "someone" was making money off people going to their website (off the videos others made)?

 

But Video Games are not movies, it is like one of the point that TB brought up: each playthrough is different. Videos of someone playing a game are akin to videos of someone playing a guitar or using a brush to paint, but you don't see the guitar makers trying to charge you for every time you make money from their guitar. Because it is your guitar, you bought it. 

[alanschu]

That's already required for monetizing a Let's Play.

Actually I don't think it is. I think it's simply a matter of "check this box to monetize your youtube." I'd be very, very surprised if even a slice of most of the people that did Let's Plays (i.e. NOT people like Total Biscuit) actively went out to get permission for a lot of them.

[Walsingham]

If i can throw something else in, I suspect that Youtube loses far more people over the controls on nudity etc than it does on this sort of content. But they made the decision that a 'family friendly' Youtube will ultimately be more profitable.

[Hurlshort]

But Video Games are not movies, it is like one of the point that TB brought up: each playthrough is different. Videos of someone playing a game are akin to videos of someone playing a guitar or using a brush to paint, but you don't see the guitar makers trying to charge you for every time you make money from their guitar. Because it is your guitar, you bought it. 

 

 

 

I'm assuming you are playing devil's advocate here.  A video game is far from a blank slate, you are still coloring within the lines that the content creator has provided.  It is much closer to a movie than a blank canvass.  If I take a movie and jumble up the clips randomly, it doesn't make me a director.     

[Amentep]

Or if you take a random book off the shelf, tear out the pages and rearrange them into Finnegan's Wake you're not a writer.

 

Each play through is still using the creations of other people - just as MST3k uses the same to create their RiffTrax and such. 

 

A guitar is an instrument.  But if you use that guitar to cover "Stairway to Heaven", record and publish it I guarantee you'll be hearing from some lawyers. 

[alanschu]

 

 

But Video Games are not movies, it is like one of the point that TB brought up: each playthrough is different. Videos of someone playing a game are akin to videos of someone playing a guitar or using a brush to paint, but you don't see the guitar makers trying to charge you for every time you make money from their guitar. Because it is your guitar, you bought it.

 

Hmmm, the computer/console might be a better analogue to the guitar.  The game is probably the song.  Though bands certainly cover other songs a lot.

 

If a cover band becomes big, do they owe anything to the original artist?  I've always wondered that.

[Meshugger]

The problem is, and always has been, that the law is trying to force people back to a pre-digital, pre-broadband, pre-anonymous internet era. It's never going to work. Adapt or die.

 

RIP HMV

 

Pretty much. This situation is just appalling from the very beginning. Hopefully there will be protest against youtube HQ in the same vein as french farmers against the ministry of agriculture.

 

They buried it in manure.

[Enoch]

80% of people pirate.

 

If there's any reliable research behind this, I'd love to see it.

 

Anyhow, the rest of that post is the same glib justification for taking what you want without paying for it that folks have been offering since the late '90s.  To a great degree, the industry has adapted since then-- see iTunes, Amazon MP3/video, Google Play, Pandora, Spotify, Hulu, Netflix, etc.   

[Amentep]

 

But Video Games are not movies, it is like one of the point that TB brought up: each playthrough is different. Videos of someone playing a game are akin to videos of someone playing a guitar or using a brush to paint, but you don't see the guitar makers trying to charge you for every time you make money from their guitar. Because it is your guitar, you bought it.

 

Hmmm, the computer/console might be a better analogue to the guitar.  The game is probably the song.  Though bands certainly cover other songs a lot.

 

If a cover band becomes big, do they owe anything to the original artist?  I've always wondered that.

 

 

 

If the music is in copyright, then they're supposed to be licensing the rights to the songs (this would cover cover bands and tribute bands and possibly Elvis impersonators who do song performances of Elvis' songs but not parody bands who are doing original parody songs, obviously).

Edited December 13, 2013 by Amentep

[Blarghagh]

 

That's already required for monetizing a Let's Play.

Actually I don't think it is. I think it's simply a matter of "check this box to monetize your youtube." I'd be very, very surprised if even a slice of most of the people that did Let's Plays (i.e. NOT people like Total Biscuit) actively went out to get permission for a lot of them.

 

 

You're correct, many people don't because there isn't a YouTube function to verify it. It's required by YouTube regulations, however.

[alanschu]

If the music is in copyright, then they're supposed to be licensing the rights to the songs (this would cover cover bands and tribute bands and possibly Elvis impersonators who do song performances of Elvis' songs but not parody bands who are doing original parody songs, obviously).

 

It wouldn't surprise me.  I mean, I doubt any garage band that happens to cover a song in a bar has licensed said song.  It might depend on if they record the song and look to sell it, compared to just covering a song during a live show.

 

 

 

 

You're correct, many people don't because there isn't a YouTube function to verify it.

 

Emphasis mine:

 

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I get the feeling that many also don't because they simply couldn't be arsed.  Possibly many of which are the same people that Total Biscuit points out as being a part of the problem, which are the Day One lets players that are clearly doing their lets play for the revenue because it's a buzz game at the moment.

Edited December 13, 2013 by alanschu

[Blarghagh]

Well, that's what I mean. Since there's no YouTube function to verify it, why would they bother?

[Amentep]

 

If the music is in copyright, then they're supposed to be licensing the rights to the songs (this would cover cover bands and tribute bands and possibly Elvis impersonators who do song performances of Elvis' songs but not parody bands who are doing original parody songs, obviously).

 

It wouldn't surprise me.  I mean, I doubt any garage band that happens to cover a song in a bar has licensed said song.  It might depend on if they record the song and look to sell it, compared to just covering a song during a live show.

 

Technically, if you perform it you're supposed to pay the rights. How often ASCAP et al get out to the local dive to check if the performer is covering the Big Bopper is an unknown.

 

The thing about publishing something, though, is it become a big stationary target. A local University library got into a big fair use lawsuit that lasted quite a few years over how much they could post for educational purposes to their website and still be within Fair Use.

[JFSOCC]

 

Yeah the problem with that argument is that it doesn't reflect reality. 80% of people pirate. That's everyone with a computer who isn't a grandma. Any industry which is dying can be seen litigating. It's a panic move because those who hold(held) power in the industry are holding on to obsolete business methods and ethics.

if I'm understanding Total Biscuit's video, the issue is not with "piracy" of the content and that there's no issue with people that are sharing the game footage. The issue is coming from the monetization of the content. So for the Lets Players that don't just share the content, but actively seek to make money off of it.

 

If we're going to use your piracy analogy, this would be akin to not going after those that actively distribute for the sake of distribution, but rather going after those that seek to profit off the distribution of the content (although in general I would say that the piracy analogy doesn't work all that well).

 

Thousands of videos have suddenly been flagged for copyright violation where it does not apply, either because it was fair use, or explicit permission had been given. Popular and Franchised youtubers have some protection from this, so yay if you work for machinima. But there are now countless youtubers who find their content shut down by false claims. The youtuber is coerced into either closing his content, or letting the copyright holders (alleged) get the profits of his video. They've got their **** reversed because that is theft of intellectual property at best and censorship at worst.

 

This isn't a hypothetical, Youtubers ARE having their legitimate content flagged and blocked. And there is no Appeals process.

That's unethical.

[Blarghagh]

There's an appeals process. You can counter claim. It just rarely works.

[sorophx]

But a lot of those aspects isn't specific to YouTube, really. It's the whole internet.

time to switch over to Tor then 

[alanschu]

Thousands of videos have suddenly been flagged for copyright violation where it does not apply, either because it was fair use, or explicit permission had been given. Popular and Franchised youtubers have some protection from this, so yay if you work for machinima. But there are now countless youtubers who find their content shut down by false claims. The youtuber is coerced into either closing his content, or letting the copyright holders (alleged) get the profits of his video. They've got their **** reversed because that is theft of intellectual property at best and censorship at worst.

 

This isn't a hypothetical, Youtubers ARE having their legitimate content flagged and blocked. And there is no Appeals process.

That's unethical.

Were those sites monetizing the content? THAT is what I am talking about and your paragraph here doesn't address the point that you were responding to. Most people don't monetize their pirated content, which is why I was pointing out the issue with equating this purely as equivalent to piracy.

 

I personally have lets play videos up, particularly of a game from Ubisoft (whom is one of the companies scrambling to whitelist their games, according to Total Biscuit) and I was completely unaffected. I have had plenty of "you have licensed material" notifications on my videos that I simply was asked to acknowledge, which was simply me going "Yes, I acknowledge that this video contains licensed material and the license holder you identify is the correct one."

 

So youtube has detected that my videos contained licensed content, specifically from a video game. My videos still work with no effort on my part since all this has started happening (I did all the acknowledgements as I posted the videos). Why? If this was exclusively a "no unauthorized sharing of the content" should I have been caught too?

Edited December 14, 2013 by alanschu

[Walsingham]

Alan, I think the point FSOCC is making, quite sensibly, is that your question about monetization is moot if there is no appeals process. There is no adjudication, according to him. Just accusation.

 

I for one like my witch hunts old skool.

[TrashMan]

Company risks? What a load of bull.

 

The companies get free advertising, but because someone, someone you tubes a whole album or movie, now everyone should be hit with the hammer of stupid restrictions?

 

You Tube can go to hellfor all I care.

[Orogun01]

Company risks? What a load of bull.

 

The companies get free advertising, but because someone, someone you tubes a whole album or movie, now everyone should be hit with the hammer of stupid restrictions?

 

You Tube can go to hellfor all I care.

YouTube is just covering themselves against legislation from corporations, the copyright holders are protecting their investment. Even if the situation is a bit reminiscent of a feudal lord shaking down farmers for their pocket change. Eventually they will find out that they have just shot themselves in the foot when everyone moves elsewhere.

[Walsingham]

My opinion, after following this debate here is that a lot of people will make a lot of sound and fury ...and carry right one with Youtube as before.

[Orogun01]

My opinion, after following this debate here is that a lot of people will make a lot of sound and fury ...and carry right one with Youtube as before.

But we have died a little bit in the process, remember that just because we have gone limp doesn't mean we're relaxed.

[Walsingham]

Two further points:

 

1) If you detailed someone you get your product or club or whatever an online presence and they DIDN'T involve Youtube, how would you feel?

 

2) If 1/3rd existing review providers disappeared, would reduce those watching or concentrate teh number to those providers who had acquired some legitimate ability to use footage?

[JFSOCC]

the question is where does legitimate become *anything that looks positive* and anything else can be censored.

 

Btw, lots of good points made, by everyone.

Edited December 15, 2013 by JFSOCC