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

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

So yeah we're going through this again. this time it was because he talked about the trailer for SKATE MAN INTENSE RESCUE and the game itself looks glorious.

http://www.maker.tv/video/5PZORtoWMKsV/section/latest/page/31?utm_expid=92296914-3.BJS8rMOoS_mduO8Y8H14Rg.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

oh, and if anyone want to talk to the developers about this incident too bad because their page is gone.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=408221164

This tells me that the dmca claim had less to do with killing negative criticism and more to do with erasing their shame from the web.

so what do you guys think about this.

edit: oh forgot to post Jim twit about it.

https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/578327510234083328

I'm a little late on this but kotaku actually did an interview with the dev of the game
http://kotaku.com/indie-developer-retaliates-to-negative-video-with-youtu-1692469143

so not only is he an asshole but a self righteous asshole.

 

[Hades]

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

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

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.

I think another musician just ended another bogus copyright claim [http://consumerist.com/2015/03/17/musician-says-universal-music-has-hijacked-his-youtube-videos-with-bogus-copyright-claims/] on his own work, only after Universal Music Group couldn't prove they were the copyright holder. The whole thing started because his music was used as a background in some audio books and UMG put the audio books in YT's Content-ID system.

In the opposite sense, Jim may be using footage from another creator, but it is a legitimate first look critical opinion of a trailer. (Sure, it was him laughing much of the time. Have you seen that trailer? Truly, Skate Man Intense Rescue one of the many gems of Steam Greenlight.)

I agree OP in that it is probably a some amateur dev that now really regrets the exposure their "game" will get. Most of the fools who copyright strike a critic keep their game up and just censor the hell out of their forums until the issue blows up in their face.

 

[The Lunatic]

Whilst I don't agree with the DMCA, and I doubt anyone will, I suppose I'll take up the mantle of playing devil's advocate, else we'll have a very boring topic.

So, as such I'll raise the following point.

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.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Whilst I don't agree with the DMCA, and I doubt anyone will, I suppose I'll take up the mantle of playing devil's advocate, else we'll have a very boring topic.

So, as such I'll raise the following point.

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.

my response to that

Spoiler

I'm sorry but no. I was in a similar situation when I made a stupid ass thread a few years back and people told me I was a dumbass for writing it. You want to know what I did about it? learn from it and moved on. I didn't try to get those people banned for pointed out my stupidity or tried to break the law to cover it up.

Fuck these thin skinned bastards!

 

[Seishisha]

I'm sorry but no. I was in a similar situation when I made a stupid ass thread a few years back and people told me I was a dumbass for writing it. You want to know what I did about it? learn from it and moved on. I didn't try to get those people banned for pointed out my stupidity or tried to break the law to cover it up.

Fuck these thin skinned bastards!

Writing a thread on a forum is hardly the same as spending hour's of your day everyday probably for months making somthing only for someone else to come and piss all over it.

People get attached to their work even more so if it takes a long time to make, its very easy to over react to criticism and view it as attack on your product and you personally. This is doubly compounded if this is a first time dev who isnt used to this sort of behaviour, and hasn't had any critical comments leveled at them before.

It's all well and good saying they should toughen up but people are complex, everyone reacts differently to the same situtations.

As for jim, i never realy cared for his work at all, i found his ego got in the way of the review content too much for me personaly. But he still has every right to say what he likes about somthing without fear of getting a dmca claim. You could probably make the argument that jim isnt actualy quallified to crituque this content based soley on it's trailer and should atleast wait untill he's got his hands on it first though.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I'm sorry but no. I was in a similar situation when I made a stupid ass thread a few years back and people told me I was a dumbass for writing it. You want to know what I did about it? learn from it and moved on. I didn't try to get those people banned for pointed out my stupidity or tried to break the law to cover it up.

Fuck these thin skinned bastards!

Writing a thread on a forum is hardly the same as spending hour's of your day everyday probably for months making somthing only for someone else to come and piss all over it.

People get attached to their work even more so if it takes a long time to make, its very easy to over react to criticism and view it as attack on your product and you personally. This is doubly compounded if this is a first time dev who isnt used to this sort of behaviour, and hasn't had any critical comments leveled at them before.

It's all well and good saying they should toughen up but people are complex, everyone reacts differently to the same situtations.

As for jim, i never realy cared for his work at all, i found his ego got in the way of the review content too much for me personaly. But he still has every right to say what he likes about somthing without fear of getting a dmca claim. You could probably make the argument that jim isnt actualy quallified to crituque this content based soley on it's trailer and should atleast wait untill he's got his hands on it first though.

ok maybe I was a little too harsh there, I know criticism can hurt sometimes but at the same time that's no excuse to fuck over peoples lives to make yourself feel better about it, especially since he's done it to so many other games and most of them don't do this Dmca bullshit. you shouldn't be in the entertainment industry if you can't take criticism.

 

[Seishisha]

ok maybe I was a little too harsh there, I know criticism can hurt sometimes but at the same time that's no excuse to fuck over peoples lives to make yourself feel better about it, especially since he's done it to so many other games and most of them don't do this Dmca bullshit. you shouldn't be in the entertainment industry if you can't take criticism.

Agreed, but i seriously doubt this will effect jim negativly, if anything its the developer who's gonna recieve the fallout and jim will come away unscathed, even if these actions got his youtube account perma-banned he already has a large enough following that transitioning into a new platform to carry on his videos wouldnt be a major issue.

Though i admit that last part is pure speculation, but as you say dev's have dmca claimed him in the past and he's still kicking so its a pretty safe bet.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

ok maybe I was a little too harsh there, I know criticism can hurt sometimes but at the same time that's no excuse to fuck over peoples lives to make yourself feel better about it, especially since he's done it to so many other games and most of them don't do this Dmca bullshit. you shouldn't be in the entertainment industry if you can't take criticism.

Agreed, but i seriously doubt this will effect jim negativly, if anything its the developer who's gonna recieve the fallout and jim will come away unscathed, even if these actions got his youtube account perma-banned he already has a large enough following that transitioning into a new platform to carry on his videos wouldnt be a major issue.

Though i admit that last part is pure speculation, but as you say dev's have dmca claimed him in the past and he's still kicking so its a pretty safe bet.

But what if it wasn't Jim. what if it was some guy with about 20 subs who was hit with 3 dmca from a spineless developer and he loses his channel, What if this was a dmca claim from a big developer like EA and they wanted to sue the man with 20 subs. what if they kept taking down videos or taking money from them like the shit TheMysteriousMrEnter has to deal with. this is why this shit pisses me off and I will not let people make excuses for it. we just got lucky that this happen to someone big.

 

[sanquin]

Just another dev naive in how brutally honest the internet can be, striking back because of it, and getting more flack in the process. Why don't they learn? Why don't they realize yet that DMCA's, removing bad reviews, and other such things will only get them -more- negative publicity? Why can't they just start saying "So the public sees our game as too unfinished/buggy/whatever to be sold. We'll remove it, improve, and try again"? Is it really that hard to admit that your shitty game is, indeed, shitty?

 

[Seishisha]

But what if it wasn't Jim. what if it was some guy with about 20 subs who was hit with 3 dmca from a spineless developer and he loses his channel, What if this was a dmca claim from a big developer like EA and they wanted to sue the man with 20 subs. what if they kept taking down videos or taking money from them like the shit TheMysteriousMrEnter has to deal with. this is why this shit pisses me off and I will not let people make excuses for it. we just keep getting lucky that this happen to someone big.

I guess although related this realy is another matter, after all the way in which youtube deal's with copyright is the source of the problem. Clearly there needs to be some oversight inplace to help protect against unfair DMCA usage and in turn protect the people providing content directly to youtube. But the system although flawed and clearly open to abuse was put in place to protect the original creator's first and deal with the outcome afterwards, is it fair to have someone basicly misusing your hard work and making money from it? Both sides of the argument have value, as i said earlier more oversight is needed.

Either that or much tighter ground rules for what exactly constitutes fair use, when it is acceptable to claim DMCA and what your content is required to possess in order to avoid DMCA. As far as i can remember the process at current works basicly automaticly and instantly takes the video down, then it's left in the video creator's hands to prove the claim is false and remove the strike from their channel. With a more clearly defined list of rules for both claimer's and content creator's this could be minimised.

Fortunatly most larger companies do not issue DMCA because they know the power of free publicity and viral marketing that youtube excells at.

Ultimatly as you said false claims only serve to harm content creator's but the system does still have some legitmate use. Personaly i feel all claims should have a short review period done by a third party who then make the assement of whether or not to allow the claim. That is currently a fantasy though but who knows maybe in the future somthing will trigger better moderation of DMCA claim usage.

 

[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.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Well, not surprised really.

I live in constant fear of youtube's content ID system in particular, but this seems to have been a deliberate attack which is worse.

Youtube's way of dealing with copyright is so, so difficult to deal with from the video producer's end. Every time I upload I basically cross my fingers and hope it doesn't get caught up in the works.

The risk is slightly lower because I don't currently monetise videos, and I don't have much of an audience either, but just knowing how messy it gets if you do get a claim made against you... Ugh.

Jim is of course very confrontational, which is more likely to piss people off in a way that they would deliberately go after him, but still, the system really doesn't help with this...

 

[Seishisha]

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/

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

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

 

[rcs619]

Whilst I don't agree with the DMCA, and I doubt anyone will, I suppose I'll take up the mantle of playing devil's advocate, else we'll have a very boring topic.

So, as such I'll raise the following point.

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.

Part of fair use is for parody and critique. It's the same reason why the Nostalgia Critic can make 40 minute videos mocking motion pictures.

I'd argue that poking fun at a terrible, incompetent videogame, either in the full form, or the trailer, actually counts as both. They put their trailer out for public consumption. Their copyright allows them to prevent other people from claiming their work as their own (why anyone would want to, I don't know), but it does not protect them from other people having negative opinions, or from having those people voice their negative opinions in ways that are very much legally protected.

You either take harsh criticism, or even mocking, on the chin and try to make a better product, like an adult would. Or, you spazz the hell out like some sort of fan-fic writer on DA and start blocking, and erasing, and trying to pretend it never happened. One is the path to future success and personal improvement, the other is... well, not.

Criticism is good, the more honest the better, so long as it is fair. It's how content makers improve, sometimes whether they want to or not.

 

[AntiChri5]

Whilst I don't agree with the DMCA, and I doubt anyone will, I suppose I'll take up the mantle of playing devil's advocate, else we'll have a very boring topic.

So, as such I'll raise the following point.

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.

Mockery is a form of critique. Unpleasant and unrefined, but valid. You can't hit things with copyright claims because it's the kind of critique you don't want.

 

[Gorrath]

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 won't tell you how to think about this but I will disagree with your opinion. During my college days, I wrote extensive critical papers of certain works. To do this, I heavily quoted those works and added my own analysis. Under the model you suggest, I would have been obligated to pay the creator of the work simply because I used the work while critiquing it. I could have made the same critiques without quoting the work, but this would have detracted from my own writing. Having critics beholden to the content creators of the work they criticize is a terrible idea since it creates a conflict of interest. This is why criticism is specifically allowed under under fair use.

 

[Nazulu]

I think these people are assholes and are really damn stupid. And I hope we get more funny material out of it.

 

[freaper]

Participating is more important than winning and everyone's a winner, right? If we stop calling bullshit when we see bullshit, we're only going to get more -you guessed it- bullshit. I'm usually in favor of a milder approach, but I don't think anyone with a little bit of common sense would try to defend these miscarriaged, green lit games as something other than crap. All devs have to start somewhere, but if you put your game up for sale, you lose the "L", and you better make sure to watch out for that motorcyc.. dude, DUDE, WATCH OUT!