Escapist Podcast: 120: YouTube Copyright

[The Escapist Staff]

120: YouTube Copyright

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

Watch Video

 

[Remus]

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

 

[rednightmare]

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

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

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

 

[Corven]

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

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

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

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

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

 

[gargantual]

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

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

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

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

 

[DarkhoIlow]

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

 

[-Dragmire-]

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

 

[medv4380]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[awdrifter]

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

 

[SecondPrize]

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

 

[Remus]

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

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

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

 

[SecondPrize]

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

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

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

 

[SecondPrize]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SecondPrize]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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