Jim was hit with a dmca claim (again) *Updated* the dev response

[Piorn]

Just watched the video, it's hilarious.
Someone definitely put a lot of effort into making this trailer, and it looks so genuine which makes it so hilarious. I can really imagine someone actually thinking all their work is worth it.
I don't care if it was an honest attempt at a game or a joke video, but I laughed a lot so that has to be worth something.

 

[AT God]

I don't really see DMCA claims as being newsworthy anymore. It appears (as an outsider with no real knowledge of how it works) that there is no penalty to at claiming any video that someone hosts. When Youtube reinstates the video, I don't think they punish the person who made the strike falsely, they might eventually ignore future claims by that company but these companies are a dime a dozen it seems. And Youtube would probably not risk legal action because after even after crying wolf dozens of times, if Youtube doesn't act in accordance with its own rules, it could be in actual legal trouble. It seems like a completely risk-less endeavor for these companies. And while Jim still gets his videos back (usually within a few days), he loses that day or two of relevance wherein he would get extra views. And while I think initially these take-downs would generate more interest, I feel people are starting to not care as much (I didn't really care during the Digital Homicide debacle until they start dubbing his videos, their take-downs are just petty acts from a company I had never heard of and had no interest in).

When EA/Sony/MS/Nintendo do take-downs on videos, especially Jimquisition videos, I can see how that is interesting and also notable because those are big companies that (some) people respect, and Jimquisition videos are much more well known, sort of like reviews of the video game industry as a whole and attempts to delay those videos seem much more malicious against Jim and freedom of information as a whole. As much as I love Jim's body of work, I don't really care for his Squirty Plays and such because the only time I bother watching them is when it is a game that I am interested in, and in those cases I am there for the gameplay and not his banter (which is counter-productive). That said, his drunken play of Hotline Miami 2 was pretty funny, I only really enjoy his squirty plays when Jim is not well, the only other one I can remember liking was the one where he was high on painkillers while playing Bus Simulator.

 

[Story]

We are going to have another Jimquesition about this subject I fear. For a third time now?

Yeah, I'm on the same page here. God, I hope Jim won't indulge himself again.

The same song and dance. Maybe I'm just getting tired of Jim's stuff? He usually picks easy targets which is just kinda boring and lazy. Plus after a while it gets samey.

I suppose it also doesn't help that I disagree with the idea of Steam curating its stuff. I'm one of the very few with that opinion though.

 

[CaitSeith]

What does Jim add to the video? Essentially it's just him laughing at and mocking the game, using only the footage given by the developers. How does this qualify for the "Fair use" justification, as, given the purpose of these videos is to mock the games and their developers, is it not up to the developer if they want to allow their footage to be used for such things?

"Fair Use" doesn't imply being fair (as in not being a douche) with your comments towards the material or its creators. Meanwhile, in the actual "Fair use" justification, you already said it: they gave him the footage. He didn't steal it. As long as he doesn't claim "Hey everybody! Look a this game I made!" he is on his right to say whatever he wants.

 

[Story]

Here's the link to Jim's response video:
http://youtu.be/HGi_2fNi9E8

I don't know why I bothered to watch. It really was the same old stuff again.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I find it so amusing that the much hated AAA industry never hits people with strikes(except "glorious" Nintendo) but the supposedly saintly indie devs are the ones who can't take even an ounce of criticism.
I suppose that's what happens when you have a team of 1 or 2. You can't blame another department for failure, so every slight is personal. But I saw the video in question when he first posted it. He was more amused and confused than angry or critical.
Still, hope this gets resolved without litigation.

 

[Lufia Erim]

I don't know how i feel about this. I think people ( especially people with influence) should seek permission before making a video based on someone elses work. Because he is taking and showing something he didn't make ( to praise or condemn). While you could argue that they have the right to critique art or whatever, people go to those channels to see the video those personalities are talking about. The video wouldn't have as many views or as big of an impact if it was just a Vlog of someone talking without the video in question.

Jim could very well just talk about the trailer without showing it, but he wouldn't get as many views as if it does show it. So Jim is kind of dependant on showing the video to maximise his views, therefor the original creator is kind of entitled to something in return.

My 2 cents.

I've seen this argument in the past, it essentialy comes down to is the work transformative or not, does jim add enough of his own input to clearly seperate the original trailer from his. This is the exact same defense let's play's use as even the act of playing the game can be argued to be transformative because no two people play the same way. Add in commentary to the play and you've once again distanced the original product from the video.

The original creator has no right to jim's opinion whether it be good or bad. Critique is a protected from copyright law under fair use. In theory this means the creator gets nothing from jim, even if footage used directly improves jim's viewership and in turn earns him a greater profit.

Nintendo are pretty much the only company right now trying to challenge this transformative and protected by fair use content. Essentialy what nintendo want is what you said, that they as the original creator's own the copyright and are entitled to a share of the profit for all video's relating to their IP. This includes reviews, trailers used as part of a larger piece of content like a podcast and ofcourse let's play. Im not certain if it also includes disscusion of said products or if direct footage has to be shown.

(link if your curious)
https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/terms/

yeah i heard about what nintendo is doing,and i kind of agree with it. People are making money buy playing and showing off their games. I know it'S not a popular opinion , but if you are using someone elses work ( like a game or a trailer or whatnot ) they kind of deserve a peice of that action. The trailer in this case is just there to Boost the views on his video. I wouldn'T want to censor or prevent anyone from critiquing anything, however, if people were just interested in Jim's opinion, i don'T see why he couldn't just talk about the trailer, and put a link for the trailer in the description for his video. That way , Jim says what he wants, and the creator of the trailer would get views from people interested in seeing what he is talking about at the same time. It's a win/win .

Again, i know it's not a popular opinion. But hey this forum is about discussion right ?

 

[Lufia Erim]

I don't know how i feel about this. I think people ( especially people with influence) should seek permission before making a video based on someone elses work. Because he is taking and showing something he didn't make ( to praise or condemn). While you could argue that they have the right to critique art or whatever, people go to those channels to see the video those personalities are talking about. The video wouldn't have as many views or as big of an impact if it was just a Vlog of someone talking without the video in question.

Jim could very well just talk about the trailer without showing it, but he wouldn't get as many views as if it does show it. So Jim is kind of dependant on showing the video to maximise his views, therefor the original creator is kind of entitled to something in return.

My 2 cents.

Spoiler

First, you go to a YouTube channels for the youtuber not the trailers. second, people talk over and use trailer footage in there videos all the time and that goes for movie trailers to so I don't see how this ones so special. Third, playthroughs of games are prefectly fine but god damn if you talk over a trailer.

can we please stop making excuses for this bullshit

Okay, so people go a channel to see the youtuber. Then, using your logic, Jim shouldn'T even need the trailer to begin with. If everyone is out to see him, well then, he can talk about the trailer leave a link in the description or something, and go to town and what ever he wants to talk about. the truth of the matter is , having the trailer in his video...

a) Makes looking at the trailer on an official channel pointless, thus getting less views and generating less money.
b) Generates more views for him , and is giving him more money

It's kind of like if i wrote a book , and an influent youtube personallity decided they are going to get a copy of my book, make a video of him reading the book, chapter by chapter , and then critique it. After which, no one will need to buy/read my book because someone already showed/read it to them even though they added their own flair to it .While that is an extreme example, it comes down to the same thing, Lost in revenu because someone took something that didn't belong to them ( without permission ), and making a video around it.

In regards to Jim'S youtube video, his videos revolve around the trailer ,even though it'S about his opinion.

Yeah i'm not gonna make any friends in this thread lol.

 

[Hades]

We are going to have another Jimquesition about this subject I fear. For a third time now?

Yeah, I'm on the same page here. God, I hope Jim won't indulge himself again.

The same song and dance. Maybe I'm just getting tired of Jim's stuff? He usually picks easy targets which is just kinda boring and lazy. Plus after a while it gets samey.

I suppose it also doesn't help that I disagree with the idea of Steam curating its stuff. I'm one of the very few with that opinion though.

With Jim I kind of fear his show will slowly become the ''Foolish publisher/developer said this show''. Its good that Jim talks about consumer issue's, about DLC and shady Steam games but he has done it to often. We have heard it all and sometimes he's to quick to shoot the Publisher. I don't think we needed to have a full episode on Ubisoft poorly wording why they didn't have a female protagonist in a year with plenty of episodes on Ubi already.
Jim's best episodes were the ones that focused on games themselves, why FF IX was emotional for example and I think Jim had a good streak of those episodes in recent days with one about Sonic, Resident evil and now Devil May Cry. I just hopes he continues on that path and not jump off unless a publisher does something truly nasty rather then merely stupid.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

YouTube's "guilty until proven innocent" policy has to change. This is getting out of hand.

 

[DoPo]

It's kind of like if i wrote a book , and an influent youtube personallity decided they are going to get a copy of my book, make a video of him reading the book, chapter by chapter , and then critique it.

This is, in fact, NOTHING AT ALL like the Jim situation. If you wrote a book, and it had a blurb on the back of it that describes what your book is about, then somebody goes and uses that. Here is a sample of John Dies at the End[footnote]OK, it's the cover of the movie, not the book, but it was easier to find and not that different, really[/footnote]

[http://dvd.box.sk/newsimg/dvdmov/max1363935697-frontback-cover.jpg]

 

[Redryhno]

We are going to have another Jimquesition about this subject I fear. For a third time now?

Yeah, I'm on the same page here. God, I hope Jim won't indulge himself again.

The same song and dance. Maybe I'm just getting tired of Jim's stuff? He usually picks easy targets which is just kinda boring and lazy. Plus after a while it gets samey.

I suppose it also doesn't help that I disagree with the idea of Steam curating its stuff. I'm one of the very few with that opinion though.

With Jim I kind of fear his show will slowly become the ''Foolish publisher/developer said this show''. Its good that Jim talks about consumer issue's, about DLC and shady Steam games but he has done it to often. We have heard it all and sometimes he's to quick to shoot the Publisher. I don't think we needed to have a full episode on Ubisoft poorly wording why they didn't have a female protagonist in a year with plenty of episodes on Ubi already.
Jim's best episodes were the ones that focused on games themselves, why FF IX was emotional for example and I think Jim had a good streak of those episodes in recent days with one about Sonic, Resident evil and now Devil May Cry. I just hopes he continues on that path and not jump off unless a publisher does something truly nasty rather then merely stupid.

The problem is that other people have taken that idea and run with it for years or recently started doing it and are already doing it better without making a five minute video about it, they either take it and expand on exactly why it's bad and what impacts it can have, or they just mention that it happened again in five seconds and there's nothing else said about it. There's alot of youtubers that talk about games and have a better working knowledge of the games than he does, about the only thing he's got over them is Jimquisition, which I'll admit I've stopped watching because it sorta became his soap-box show as opposed to his soap-box show that talked about the industry.


OT:
Everyone knows that there's shit games on Steam, everyone knows publishers and their out sourced marketing have shady practices sometimes. Everyone knows the crap he talks about happens, but if you're just going to laugh and mock a trailer for five minutes, you have even less to offer than the creators of a horrible game.

That video is the equivalent of what you do when you've got friends over and someone falls down the steps and gets their crotch wedged between a cinderblock and the grass(yes, this has happened) because you're all drunk. You laugh at the pain, the spectacle, and exactly how it happened, and then you go on like nothing happened because you got nothing more out of it than you would if you had fallen down the steps yourself.

Do I think it needs to dmca'd? No, but I don't think it needed to exist in the first place either.

 

[Neverhoodian]

To quote the Demoman, "if you were huntin' trouble, lad, ya found it!"

The trailer alone was hilariously bad. I shudder to imagine what actually playing it would be like. Still, "hilariously bad" has its place in the world. Personally, I think the developer should own that shit. Take that shame and turn it into bravado. Make it The Room of video games.

YouTube, We got simple advice for you: FIX your BROKEN copyright system. It is Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition and has been since day 1. People are still able to upload full, unaltered movies and tv show episodes they obviously don't have the rights to (I just found Tron, again.), yet critics like Jim Sterling deal with this petty shit way too often.

So much this. I used to upload videos to Youtube (don't try to find them, they're dumb), but I gave up after getting one too many bullshit copyright matches. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when they muted an upload from the computer game X-Wing because the intro had a MIDI version of the Star Wars theme. It wasn't even monetized. Call me crazy, but I don't think John Williams/Lucasfilm/Disney were going to lose any royalties from that.

 

[Bad Jim]

I think that if they make an entertaining joke trailer they should get the ad revenue from it, not some random guy laughing at it. I mean, it's not like that's a real game is it.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

YouTube, We got simple advice for you: FIX your BROKEN copyright system. It is Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition and has been since day 1. People are still able to upload full, unaltered movies and tv show episodes they obviously don't have the rights to (I just found Tron, again.), yet critics like Jim Sterling deal with this petty shit way too often.

Basically, yeah. The system is COMPLETELY broken.

When someone (my brother, for instance) makes a top 5 movies of the year video, and it gets taken down the next DAY because he showed a 15 second scene from one movie without talking over it, but other people apparently are able to get away with putting full movies up for months or longer, there is a SERIOUS problem.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

I can't believe YouTube is still allowing for its copyright system to be weaponised...

 

[snekadid]

I don't know how i feel about this. I think people ( especially people with influence) should seek permission before making a video based on someone elses work. Because he is taking and showing something he didn't make ( to praise or condemn). While you could argue that they have the right to critique art or whatever, people go to those channels to see the video those personalities are talking about. The video wouldn't have as many views or as big of an impact if it was just a Vlog of someone talking without the video in question.

Jim could very well just talk about the trailer without showing it, but he wouldn't get as many views as if it does show it. So Jim is kind of dependant on showing the video to maximise his views, therefor the original creator is kind of entitled to something in return.

My 2 cents.

And you are objectively wrong.

He didn't show a video game that was monetized, he showed an advertisement that was free for all to view and critiqued what was shown. No one went to the video to watch the advertisement. They went to the video to listen to Jim talk about it.

The laws extensively protect this right, because without it the NEWS (yes, all of it) would just cease to exist if they had to seek permission to air basic video content, and I can't think of something that is more meant to influence than NEWS channels. I mean Faux NEWS lives entirely by being a echo chamber.

 

[Flames66]

What does Jim add to the video? Essentially it's just him laughing at and mocking the game, using only the footage given by the developers. How does this qualify for the "Fair use" justification, as, given the purpose of these videos is to mock the games and their developers, is it not up to the developer if they want to allow their footage to be used for such things?

Given most of the developers featured on these videos end up the receiving end of abuse and harassment from Jim's fans, is it not fair that a developer would want to try and shield themselves as much as possible from that? Admittedly, Streisand affect tells us this is counter productive, but, in a situation, I imagine one would feel they have little other choices.

It looks to me like the developers achieved exactly what they were hoping for. Here is my theory:

They made a laggy, poorly rendered, badly edited trailer of an either unfinished or generally bad game for the purpose of it being mocked. Then they do the old take down dance with Jim so that everyone hears about it and by extension them and their game.

If that was their plan, it worked. I wouldn't have heard of them otherwise.

 

[Davroth]

Jim is a big boy, and he's backed by a big youtube network. If the DMCA takedown was not legal, then the video will go back up. That's all there really is to it. Any speculation on that front is just wasted time.

 

[DoPo]

Somebody found their website, it made me giggle. [http://digpexgames.com/]

But seriously maybe my tinfoil hat or my sleep deprivation is speaking for me right now but what if this is an elaborate trolling scheme? It sure seems like it. Just take a bunch of pictures for a non-existing game, post it on Steam Greenlight under a nickname, pay a few dollars to setup a website (No twitter or facebook) and then just sit and wait for someone to take the bait.

Interesting - take a look at the email address at the bottom - it says "info AT digpixgames.com" but it actually links to a ytcvn.com domain email. Also, having a very brief look at the source code of the page...I dunno, either someboy made effort to make it look amateurish or...it is amateurish.

Spoiler: Excerpt from the JavaScript

function showOptions(resp){
     var i;

     var scripts = resp.cart.extractScripts();

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;for (i=0; i<scripts.length; i++)
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;{
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;if (typeof(scripts) != 'undefined' && i<2){
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;try{
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;eval(scripts);
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;catch(e){
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;console.debug(e);
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;else{
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;break;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;$("confirmbox").innerHTML=resp.cart.stripScripts()+iffix;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;$("process").setStyle({display:"none"});
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;$("fancybox-wrap").setStyle({display:"block"});
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;$("options").setStyle({display:"block"});

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;try{
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;fixcenter();
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;catch(e){
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;console.debug(e);
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;for (i; i<scripts.length; i++)
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;{
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;if (typeof(scripts) != 'undefined')
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;{&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;try{
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;eval(scripts);
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;catch(e){
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;console.debug(e);
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;productAddToCartForm = new VarienForm('product_addtocart_form');

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;decorateGeneric($$('#product-options-wrapper dl'), ['last']);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;addSubmitEvent();
}

(it may be easier to look at it
Seriously? I've not even done anything with it - I removed some commented out code to make it slightly easier on the eye. And also applied a bit of a hack for spaces since the forum was removing them.