So Long Gamer YouTubers

[unknown_user7464664647]

Youtube has had so many problems with copyright strikes, this doesn't really concern me. When the rules come into play (this January, I believe) I'm sure Networks will be able to understand them and adapt in order to protect their "children".

 

[laurenzside]

THANK GOD I don't play AAA games! Haven't gotten hit with any copyright strikes yet. *knock on wood* Hope it stays that way and I'll continue to do my thing. I do feel bad for COD or Nintendo based channels though that this is going to hit the hardest. I'm glad I was more into indie games when starting my channel.

 

[Sinc]

How were they stealing? It's not like a movie, you can't play a video the way you'd play a game. Like the OP said, many of the games I buy are based on gameplays I see on YT.

It's not the same as ripping off a company logo, design or video. It is literally free promotion, and that's all.

wrong, its not free promotion if your getting paid to do it, thats a lawsuit in most cases , "A lawsuit or (very rarely) "suit in law"is a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions, demands a legal or equitable remedy." a bit of copy and paste, Its a loss in terms of revenue, so yea, they are 100% in the right, if they wanted they can have your entire channel taken down, its the law.

If i killed someone and it turns out the person i killed, was gonna kill 2 people, yes i saved those 2 people, but i did kill someone, so to say, "Im helping you" but in fact im just helping myself, its the same thing, if you dont own the content you have no say in its use.

 

[illage2]

Aren't commentaries protected under UK Copyright law providing a sufficent acknowledgement is given?

 

[Rose Reaper]

I was wondering if I should start let's playing AAA titles. Now I made up my mind about it lol

 

[Kleineganz]

wrong, its not free promotion if your getting paid to do it, thats a lawsuit in most cases , "A lawsuit or (very rarely) "suit in law"is a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions, demands a legal or equitable remedy." a bit of copy and paste, Its a loss in terms of revenue, so yea, they are 100% in the right, if they wanted they can have your entire channel taken down, its the law.

If i killed someone and it turns out the person i killed, was gonna kill 2 people, yes i saved those 2 people, but i did kill someone, so to say, "Im helping you" but in fact im just helping myself, its the same thing, if you dont own the content you have no say in its use.

However, adding commentary makes it fair use.

 

[Crown]

I think the stricter rules are being brought in due to the sheer number of gaming videos on YouTube. Publishers are p****d because they consider it's diluting their brand and YT don't want YT to be full of millions of gaming videos. The stricter rules are there to reduce the numbers, not to get rid of them completely IMO.

 

[ManchildKart]

wrong, its not free promotion if your getting paid to do it

It's free for the developer, not a cost to them.

a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a 's actions, demands a or ." a bit of copy and paste, Its a loss in terms of revenue, so yea, they are 100% in the right, if they wanted they can have your entire channel taken down, its the law.

Video game coverage INCREASES sales, it doesn't result in a loss for the developers. There are several examples I've seen of developers releasing sales-figures and pointing out the peaks where say PewDiePie or TotalBiscuit covered their games.

Adding to gameplay with commentary also puts the coverage into fair use. There is a reason "let's plays" are popular and not "long plays". Commentary adds to the value of the video. Haven't heard of "long plays"? They are un-commented playthroughs, and not many people watch them.

 

[Sinc]

It's free for the developer, not a cost to them.



Video game coverage INCREASES sales, it doesn't result in a loss for the developers. There are several examples I've seen of developers releasing sales-figures and pointing out the peaks where say PewDiePie or TotalBiscuit covered their games.

1, thats all fine and dandy but when EVERYONE, including people with low views are using your stuff and profiting, it is infact hurting your revenue, your only defending it because it concerns you LOL[DOUBLEPOST=1386692163,1386692020][/DOUBLEPOST]

However, adding commentary makes it fair use.

eh, not really, fair use doesnt hold up in court when it comes to games as far as i know, never seen it happen.

You know whats the best part of the fair use doctrine?

The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

its saying in pretty simple terms, if you dont own it, just dont use it if you cant legally back it up.[DOUBLEPOST=1386692263][/DOUBLEPOST]

Aren't commentaries protected under UK Copyright law providing a sufficent acknowledgement is given?

the key words here are "sufficient acknowledgement", as long as both parties agree on its use, "LIKE nintendo has made it pretty clear", its ok.

 

[ManchildKart]

1, thats all fine and dandy but when EVERYONE, including people with low views are using your stuff and profiting, it is infact hurting your revenue, your only defending it because it concerns you LOL

If people with low views are using your stuff, they haven't spread the advertising enough. They have, however, bought the game. So how is it a loss? No matter how many views a video gets, a percentage of those viewers will buy the game covered. More people than would have bought it if there was no coverage.

Yeah, it concerns me. So I've done my research, shocking isn't it?
The question is, why do you seem to feel threatened by gaming videos to the degree that you want to disparage them?