Jimquisition: Copyright War

[gyroscopeboy]

I know it's not true for many other people, but when I watch a full Let's PLay, I then DON'T buy the game. It's why i've only bought one game this entire year, and that was GTA V. I guess those count as lost sales?

For most people it's the opposite ("Oh, this game looks fun, I'm gonna buy it!").

Your case is really odd though. You may be missing out by not buying them, watching a game is not as fun as playing it.

I'm not so sure.

For example, I LOVE the hitman series. I have every single game ever made. Yet, for financial/time constraints, I couldn't really commit to buying the latest one, so I checked out a Let's Play expecting to still purchase it later on. Once I'd seen it played through once I had no desire to purchase it.

The only games i'll buy after seeing gameplay footage are ones that are a bit more 'sandbox" where my experience may differ a lot from the person playing the LP.

Then again, maybe I'm just less of a gamer these days haha.

 

[Atmos Duality]

This is why Youtube pulling content does not violate Freedom of Speech - the speaker is still free to express themselves, but Youtube is under no obligation to provide the means for that speech to be distributed.

While this is quite true, I find it more than a tad ironic, considering that youtube advertised their purpose to content providers as a distributor of videos (speech).

It's probably why they stopped using the slogans "Express yourself" and "Broadcast Yourself".

Ahh, EULAs...letting companies backtrack on their word for any reason since the dawn of the Information Age.

Can a .... heavily story based game be spoiled by let's players? I think it's a good possibility

That demonstrates the weakness of the game more than anything.

I can say this, because the unique fundamental element that the medium of video games offers, is player agency. They don't just have a stake in the outcome of the story, they have an active role in said story.

Good games can tell great stories, but if a game can be experienced mostly through second hand observation, then clearly, player agency means little, and it's more akin to a movie than a game.

 

[Eve Charm]

That's a problem with story based games and is why I try to refrain from watching walkthroughs of those types of games.However if watching a Let's Play drives people away from buying the game then that's the game's fault for not making them interested enough to buy it.

Can a .... heavily story based game be spoiled by let's players? I think it's a good possibility

That demonstrates the weakness of the game more than anything.

I can say this, because the unique fundamental element that the medium of video games offers, is player agency. They don't just have a stake in the outcome of the story, they have an active role in said story.

Good games can tell great stories, but if a game can be experienced mostly through second hand observation, then clearly, player agency means little, and it's more akin to a movie than a game.

Really so it's the GAME's fault that it's not really a puzzle game or an open world sandbox but a game structured more like a book or movie with beginning, middle, climax, and ending... Well anyawy , Agree or disagree it doesn't really matter.

What does matter is you can CLEARLY see Linearly games can suffer. Great example of a non player agency game, point and click like secret of monkey island, can be easily watched rather then played.

Meaning lets plays of game like this can hurt the marketability of game, The Value of a game, and future sales of the game. That said, LET'S PLAY's would not fall under FAIR USE anymore and a copyright holder as Every right to yank it to protect their copyright. Just because it's a weakness of the game that if it's spoiled it's value goes down, doesn't me it shouldn't still be protected by it's copyright.

 

[furai47]

Except AAA marketing is deceptive and most major review sites mislead at best or lie at worst.That's why Let's Plays are important because they let you see the game for what it really is.

That's a problem with story based games and is why I try to refrain from watching walkthroughs of those types of games.However if watching a Let's Play drives people away from buying the game then that's the game's fault for not making them interested enough to buy it.

First quote:
That the buyer's problem. If you're not smart enough to inform yourself thoroughly about your purchase then it's your fault. Not to mention that LP's can also be bought and colour the audience's opinion of the game.

Second quote:
If I was a developer on a heavily story based game or something that is best experienced without prior knowledge to it (anecdote: in my case it was Antichamber and Telltale's The Walking Dead and GTA V) and I saw people rather watch someone play my game instead of buying it, I'd be more than a bit sad. If you then showed up and told me that to my face...nah, the mods won't allow it.

I bought the aforementioned two games (not GTA) after I've seen them LP'd because I thought the developers deserved it/I wanted to play them later. I also haven't yet played either of them, I may if I have time but right now it doesn't seem likely.

Now imagine if I didn't buy them because I thought "oh well, I've seen them anyway so I know what's going to happen" or maybe I didn't like the ending or something. That's a potential loss, for whomever distributed the game and the publisher and the developer. Now try to imagine how many people may also do the same. That's one of the reasons this is happening, potential sales losses.

 

[Krantos]

Snip

Double Snip

When does showing spoilers directly from a game not Devalue or have a chance of devaluing it? Showing the ending can ruin a game or movie. It's hard to market a mystery when it's been spoiled already and so on and so on. People can see that very easily as devaluing.

Trailers on the other hand, DON'T show everything, same with excerpts on the box, and even if it does it's THEM spoiling THEIR OWN copyright.

On the other hand reviews aren't using the product itself to devalue it, it's just someone talking over basically a trailer of the game, As long as they don't use enough things like spoilers or the end, it isn't really devaluing the copyright.

I can defend this stance pretty damn easily, Watching someone play through a game like outlast, Made me not have to outlast and wait for it go on sale. If they weren't around I'd have to had paid and bought it during the release time, the most important part of the game's life to experience it.

I bolded the important parts above. See, your first post made a broad sweeping statement "you can't fair use the whole or most of the game without devaluing the original"

That's a very different stance than the one you defended above. In this post you explained there are times when lets plays can devalue a work. That's a statement I can actually agree with. My problem was with the stance that any game with any lengthy lets play would be intrinsically damaging to the value of a product.


The question, then becomes one of whether devaluing a product is or is not acceptable (morally, the Copyright laws in this country are a mess).

For example, you say that spoiler filled lets plays devalue the piece. I would agree with that. However, you also say that reviews do not devalue a game unless it has spoilers. I would disagree with that. When I'm looking at a game, the first thing I do is check reviews. If the game has a number of bad reviews, I don't typically get it. Those reviews have effectively lost sales for the game.

However, we accept negative reviews. We even get upset when companies go to lengths to suppress them. Why? If the only requisite something has to violate copyright is to devalue the game, then by rights negative reviews should not be allowed.

But, if, on the other hand, we accept negative reviews morally sound, then we are forced to acknowledge there are more standards that have to be met before something infringes the copyright enough to be morally objectionable. At which point the discussion becomes one of what those standards are and whether lets plays meets them.

Which I think is a much more interesting discussion.

 

[Foolery]

I don't have much pity for people who make their money off of the internet and then cry fowl when it keeps changing. Having some monetization is fine, but when you're getting your sole income from a private corporation that you're technically not employed with, and has potentially drastic changes in policy, that's a problem that you need to deal with, not Youtube. They're not obligated to do anything for you. It's foolish to be dependent on a third-party tool that exists as a single point of failure. You have to acknowledge the inherent risk in those situations and be able to reasonably prepare for certain eventualities.

 

[furai47]

People say the same thing for used games yet that does'nt give the game industry the right to take something that's not theirs.

It does when the people they are "taking" from are the ones blatantly disregarding the fact that they don't want their content to appear in walkthroughs/LPs.

 

[Eve Charm]

That's a very different stance than the one you defended above. In this post you explained there are times when lets plays can devalue a work. That's a statement I can actually agree with. My problem was with the stance that any game with any lengthy lets play would be intrinsically damaging to the value of a product.


The question, then becomes one of whether devaluing a product is or is not acceptable (morally, the Copyright laws in this country are a mess).

Pretty much ya, any story game CAN be claimed to be devalued by a full lengthy let's play in the same sense as long clips or everything from a movie or from a book. It's not a question tho, the only reason people could post a let's play is due to fair use, if fair use is broken then it's just abusing a copyright, And it should Only be up to the copyright holder then.

For example, you say that spoiler filled lets plays devalue the piece. I would agree with that. However, you also say that reviews do not devalue a game unless it has spoilers. I would disagree with that. When I'm looking at a game, the first thing I do is check reviews. If the game has a number of bad reviews, I don't typically get it. Those reviews have effectively lost sales for the game.

However, we accept negative reviews. We even get upset when companies go to lengths to suppress them. Why? If the only requisite something has to violate copyright is to devalue the game, then by rights negative reviews should not be allowed.

But, if, on the other hand, we accept negative reviews morally sound, then we are forced to acknowledge there are more standards that have to be met before something infringes the copyright enough to be morally objectionable. At which point the discussion becomes one of what those standards are and whether lets plays meets them.

Which I think is a much more interesting discussion.

Reviews are different because it isn't using the copyrighted product to direct devalue the copyrighted product. Someone talking about how garbage a game is, is their own work, not the copyrighted material of the game which is protected in itself by freedom of speech. Even someone showing Bad glitches or dumb crashes of a game or how bad the gameplay isn't really considered devaluing the work. Your showing it off out of context in a small chunk like a demo and aren't really taking away the experience one would have getting up to those moments the way a let's play would.

 

[Eve Charm]

No they don't.This is why the current copyright laws are so broken because anyone can claim something is their content on Youtube.Would you be saying the same thing if for every time you drove a car Ford or any other car manufacturer gets a cut of your earnings because you are using their car to get to work?

No because a car is a product and not a license and your not infringing anyone's copyrights by using a product as intended or personal use. You'd only start to break the grounds of copyright if you bought a bunch of a product modified it then started to sell it if you didn't have permission. Think like mod consoles.

 

[furai47]

Says who?Do game devs put disclaimers in their games that prohibits people from showing footage of their games?

No, but after this recent change a lot of them have openly stated their stance on the matter. Even before this change was enacted it was well known what each company thinks of this. Let me quote myself for a moment.

...See http://alloyseven.com/component/k2/item/115-monetize-gaming-videos and http://letsplaylist.wikia.com/wiki/%22Let%27s_Play%22-friendly_developers_Wiki#Master_List...

This is a simple issue. Youtube has a set of policies in place. These policies state that if you don't have permission from the developer or publisher to upload footage of their games then your videos may be removed. If you do upload video without the developer's or publisher's permission then taking your video down is completely justified because again, Youtube can be sued if they doesn't comply.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[C14N]

People say the same thing for used games yet that does'nt give the game industry the right to take something that's not theirs.

It does when the people they are "taking" from are the ones blatantly disregarding the fact that they don't want their content to appear in walkthroughs/LPs.

Says who?Do game devs put disclaimers in their games that prohibits people from showing footage of their games?No they don't,just like they don't say that people can't buy used games or sell them for that matter.Of course even if they did the First Sale laws would override them anyway.

Well I don't know about console games but a lot of these Let's Plays are from PC games. When you install a PC game there is always that huge End User License Agreement that you have to say you read and accepted to play and there could very well be something in there to the tune of "don't record this and share the footage". It's also true that for most PC games (especially downloads from services like Steam) you don't actually own the game at all, you just own a license that I'm pretty sure they could revoke at any given moment if they felt like it.

I don't understand it though. I would have assumed that all of these gameplay videos basically function as free advertising. If a video of your game gets 2 million views, that's 2 million people who are now more aware of your product. The multiplayer videos must do a lot to help the hype too. I understand devs not wanting their cutscenes in the videos because that's basically just a movie and loses nothing by being on Youtube but nobody is going to substitute actually playing a game by watching someone else do it. Ever go to a friends house and play a single player game together? Watching someone else at it just wants to make you play it more, even if it isn't that good. I just feel like companies should want these for their own sake. I don't mind if they're greedy and everything, it would be nice if they weren't but this is real life so they expect to maximise their profits, but it just seems like this a mutually beneficial relationship.

Also, EA recently said they want to be the most popular gaming company. This is a big opportunity for them on a silver platter. All they have to do is have some PR person put on a big smile and say "of course we want these Let's Play people sharing our games, we love that stuff" and I bet plenty of people will forget about Sim City. It won't even cost them anything, they just need to maintain the status quo for popularity points.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Really so it's the GAME's fault that it's not really a puzzle game or an open world sandbox but a game structured more like a book or movie with beginning, middle, climax, and ending...

It's the truth of the matter. Chide it if you wish.
That said, yes, puzzle centric games are unfortunately the most at risk.

Just because it's a weakness of the game that if it's spoiled it's value goes down, doesn't me it shouldn't still be protected by it's copyright.

The problem with this reasoning is that it lets the exception define the norm.

For every puzzle game you can cite, I can point to upwards of a dozen other games that aren't ruined by Lets Play exposure.
Sadly, due to the nature of Law, there is no eloquent legal solution that satisfies everyone.

Either the corporate culture, or the gamer culture must cede something in this exchange.

The practical solution is for the market to just not spoil puzzle games, either by creating or watching such LPs, but I doubt that would happen.

 

[furai47]

Because people like Angry Joe,Total Biscuit,and Jim Sterling have been hit with copyright claims despite having permission to use game footage.It's bullshit and Youtube needs to fix their completely broken copy right system because at this point videos are being taken down for the most minor of things.

Delicious red herring. Alright, I'll bite.

In cases where the user has permission from the copyright holder to use the content and a copyright strike is issued Youtube can lift said strikes and usually will. This is standard procedure and something anyone attempting to upload copyrighted material should know.