TotalBiscuit Takedown Notice

[Canadamus Prime]

If I'm not mistaken a lot of this and similar incidents have to do with the fact that many of these companies outsource their copyright protection whatevers to a 3rd party, and even then it's largely handled by automated bots. Of course both of those are incredibly stupid things to do.

 

[rcs619]

So... Total Biscuit/Cynical Brit/John Bain posted two videos on YouTube not too long ago, a first impressions-video for Guise of the Wolf, and a recording of the research stream for the same game. Guess which videos have been hit by takedown notices?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ask3Dn1ocIQ

... this is just unbelievable; do these people seriously not see how this kind of attempted censorship harms their product and reputation? And this isn't the first time, either; TB got hit with a takedown notice for his video on Day One: Garry's Incident as well when he blasted that game for being, pardon the language, utter garbage.

I can't wait to see how FUN Creators (yes, that's their name. FUN. I beg to differ) try to justify this, because I can't imagine this going over particularly well.

Captcha: third degree...

Well, I reckon FUN are gonna get burned by this.

Actually you know what ? I get it. Why would i want a bunch of randomers talking about my games. Especially if it's a bad game or they are known to say bad things about their games. Sure it's free publicity, but only if the reviewer liked it. If the reviewer hated it, and is a popular figure, then it's bad for business. Yes it's a way to control information about their games , but i do believe only certain people should be allowed to " review" games not every tom, dick and harry with a camera ( i'm not saying that's what total biscuit is).


Its not that i necessarily agree with the reasons for taking down/flagging videos. It's just that i understand where they are coming from.

The main issue with this is, that it's illegal. In the US, where Totalbiscuit is based out of currently (and in most countries with any sort of half-decent laws). A review falls under fair use for *exactly* this reason. Because if it didn't, anyone could force any review they didn't like to be taken down and the consumers would be unable to get any sort of raw, unbiased opinion on the product. The developer's opinion regarding the review is completely irrelevant. Reviews fall under fair use and are protected speech. And quite honestly, the more reviews are available, the better it is for the consumers. Especially with how friendly mainstream game journalism has become with publishers and various entertainment corporations.

If you make a shitty game (and let's be real, they knew they'd made a shitty game. NO ONE could have looked at Guise of the Wolf and go "You know what? That's done and completely ready to put up for sale") then you put on your bigboy pants and take your lumps. If Totalbiscuit puts up a first-impressions video where he points out every major bug and mistake he can find, you go "Thank you for the constructive criticism," and you try to do better next time. That is, if you actually care about being a competent and honest game developer.

If you just want to put out a half-finished product and hope a bunch of uninformed people buy it before the bad word gets out, then yeah, they're basically following the playbook. But all this does is hurt them in the end, and show what a terrible sort of development company they are. The best thing they could do is change their company name and remove Guise of the Wolf from their resumes so that no one recognizes them and rightfully refuses to buy their future products.

 

[mike1921]

So... Total Biscuit/Cynical Brit/John Bain posted two videos on YouTube not too long ago, a first impressions-video for Guise of the Wolf, and a recording of the research stream for the same game. Guess which videos have been hit by takedown notices?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ask3Dn1ocIQ

... this is just unbelievable; do these people seriously not see how this kind of attempted censorship harms their product and reputation? And this isn't the first time, either; TB got hit with a takedown notice for his video on Day One: Garry's Incident as well when he blasted that game for being, pardon the language, utter garbage.

I can't wait to see how FUN Creators (yes, that's their name. FUN. I beg to differ) try to justify this, because I can't imagine this going over particularly well.

Captcha: third degree...

Well, I reckon FUN are gonna get burned by this.

Actually you know what ? I get it. Why would i want a bunch of randomers talking about my games. Especially if it's a bad game or they are known to say bad things about their games. Sure it's free publicity, but only if the reviewer liked it. If the reviewer hated it, and is a popular figure, then it's bad for business. Yes it's a way to control information about their games , but i do believe only certain people should be allowed to " review" games not every tom, dick and harry with a camera ( i'm not saying that's what total biscuit is).


Its not that i necessarily agree with the reasons for taking down/flagging videos. It's just that i understand where they are coming from.

You're not making a point here or giving us any insight, everyone knows the perceived benefit on their end, or at least I'd hope they do. Of course they don't want people giving them negative reviews, there is no one sitting wondering "I wonder what sort of benefit they were going to receive from this". The point of a critique is not to increase sales of a game though, it's to inform consumers. It's not for FUN it's for ME. Yes it's bad for business, it's bad for business if by word of mouth I tell you the game is trash too and they can't subpoena me for that. Just because it's bad for your business doesn't mean you have a legal right to stop it.

I'd like some justification in preventing anyone from reviewing games.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Actually you know what ? I get it. Why would i want a bunch of randomers talking about my games. Especially if it's a bad game or they are known to say bad things about their games. Sure it's free publicity, but only if the reviewer liked it. If the reviewer hated it, and is a popular figure, then it's bad for business. Yes it's a way to control information about their games , but i do believe only certain people should be allowed to " review" games not every tom, dick and harry with a camera ( i'm not saying that's what total biscuit is).


Its not that i necessarily agree with the reasons for taking down/flagging videos. It's just that i understand where they are coming from.

well not sure about this newest controversy, but with Garys Incident, the publisher had given Total Biscuit a review copy, then got it took down. That ain't stopping any Tom Dick n Harry. Thats throwing your toys out of the pram

 

[Gunner 51]

As another poster had already pointed out, perhaps it might be wise for Total Biscuit to make back-up copies of his videos on other sites. The copyright stuff on Youtube is getting petty at best and unsustainable and unstable at worst.

 

[Qvar]

Okay fine, you're probably right; but these jokers are making me really angry.
No, I don't know extradition laws. I'm not even American, by the way.
That said, it's not like international law ever stopped America before.

They're holding his channel hostage (one more claim will shut down his account) and claiming someone (they seem to think it was EA) blackmailed him to say bad things about their game, which they gave him a review code for. Then claimed the emails proving this were photoshopped. Then the recent video proving they weren't photoshopped they're just playing dumb.

https://twitter.com/FUNCreators

*me grabs popcorn*

This looks like it's going to be even more entertaining than it seemed.

 

[stormeris]

I hope the bastards at unFUN creators get their ass handed to them for this bs...

One would think that the garry's incident's incident was enough...

 

[major_chaos]

Small update: FUN appears to have deleted some of their dumbest tweets, although the smug attitude remains. Even if its true they didn't issue that takedown (which I don't even believe at this point) they have bought themselves a ton of negative PR just by behaving like jackasses.

 

[lunavixen]

So before everyone gets their pitchforks out please read this:
https://twitter.com/FUNCreators/statuses/433786209702117376
which links to this:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/259640/discussions/0/558746089682249264/

The developer say they didn't do it. So what we have here is conflicting information especially since TB said it got taken down by them.
Either way it reflects badly on youtube. If it was an imposter doing it they should check it better who flags something. If it was the devs then it is still bullshit to takedown the review simply because the footage shouldd be under fair use. Ohh yeah and if it is the latter shame on the devs

The system is automated, there is a decent chance that FUN didn't issues those claims but someone else did. The system is broken as hell and a fix is unlikely to be coming.

 

[mjharper]

Just throwing this out there, but is there any chance that FUN's email (etc) as been hacked? It would explain a lot of the conflicting viewpoints here.

I'm not trying to be an apologist, it's just that there are so many mixed signals coming from them.

 

[agent9]

So... Total Biscuit/Cynical Brit/John Bain posted two videos on YouTube not too long ago, a first impressions-video for Guise of the Wolf, and a recording of the research stream for the same game. Guess which videos have been hit by takedown notices?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ask3Dn1ocIQ

... this is just unbelievable; do these people seriously not see how this kind of attempted censorship harms their product and reputation? And this isn't the first time, either; TB got hit with a takedown notice for his video on Day One: Garry's Incident as well when he blasted that game for being, pardon the language, utter garbage.

I can't wait to see how FUN Creators (yes, that's their name. FUN. I beg to differ) try to justify this, because I can't imagine this going over particularly well.

Captcha: third degree...

Well, I reckon FUN are gonna get burned by this.

Actually you know what ? I get it. Why would i want a bunch of randomers talking about my games. Especially if it's a bad game or they are known to say bad things about their games. Sure it's free publicity, but only if the reviewer liked it. If the reviewer hated it, and is a popular figure, then it's bad for business. Yes it's a way to control information about their games , but i do believe only certain people should be allowed to " review" games not every tom, dick and harry with a camera ( i'm not saying that's what total biscuit is).


Its not that i necessarily agree with the reasons for taking down/flagging videos. It's just that i understand where they are coming from.

TB sends them a form in which they ask the company permission to review the game with express purpose of monetizing said review. if everything is a go he makes the video if not he moves on. they are very much in the wrong on this one as they already made their bed with TB, now they have to sleep in it. it's also censorship in an attempt to deceive customers and control their own ratings which I would say is borderline illegal. it matters not where they're coming from, if EA did this we would demand their heads on a pike.

 

[Cecilo]

So... Total Biscuit/Cynical Brit/John Bain posted two videos on YouTube not too long ago, a first impressions-video for Guise of the Wolf, and a recording of the research stream for the same game. Guess which videos have been hit by takedown notices?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ask3Dn1ocIQ

... this is just unbelievable; do these people seriously not see how this kind of attempted censorship harms their product and reputation? And this isn't the first time, either; TB got hit with a takedown notice for his video on Day One: Garry's Incident as well when he blasted that game for being, pardon the language, utter garbage.

I can't wait to see how FUN Creators (yes, that's their name. FUN. I beg to differ) try to justify this, because I can't imagine this going over particularly well.

Captcha: third degree...

Well, I reckon FUN are gonna get burned by this.

Actually you know what ? I get it. Why would i want a bunch of randomers talking about my games. Especially if it's a bad game or they are known to say bad things about their games. Sure it's free publicity, but only if the reviewer liked it. If the reviewer hated it, and is a popular figure, then it's bad for business. Yes it's a way to control information about their games , but i do believe only certain people should be allowed to " review" games not every tom, dick and harry with a camera ( i'm not saying that's what total biscuit is).


Its not that i necessarily agree with the reasons for taking down/flagging videos. It's just that i understand where they are coming from.

If you don't do a good job, you don't get paid, or you get fired, or both. If they made a good game they wouldnt have anything to worry about from ANY Reviewer, so no, to me, there is no justifiable reason to ever take down a review.

Plus, these flags are not just "Oh. We'll take down your one video" No. This is "If you get three, you are out of a job", How is it alright for them to protect their business and make money off a half baked game but not okay for any "tom, dick and harry with a camera" to make money by reviewing a half baked terrible game?

 

[2xDouble]

This is not a legit claim. FUN had already responded via Twitter to TB's lambasting of their game, and were quite amicable about the whole thing; embarrassed a bit, understandably, but amicable. Both TB and FUN have stated through discussions on Twitter that this was not an action by the company, but an individual claiming to be an employee.

 

[Hatchet90]

FUN does not know what they have done.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

If I'm not mistaken a lot of this and similar incidents have to do with the fact that many of these companies outsource their copyright protection whatevers to a 3rd party, and even then it's largely handled by automated bots. Of course both of those are incredibly stupid things to do.

Yes and as a youtuber I've dealt with such companies. They are the most impressively vile and threatening groups I've ever run into. They put in a claim and basically played the "well sue you and take everything card." So I called them on it in the counter claim, stated how the law was on my side, stated the statistics such as compensation for such a false claim, if they took it further. Then stated how I'd take it to the EU courts. It's amazing how apologetic they were after I pointed out they were acting illegally.

Fun creators are mad to do this.
It will cost them court fees.
If they lose it's a minimum $5,000 fine to compensate the creator per incident of DMCA abuse. With optional 10% loss of earning compensation to the victim.
On top of that they then also have to pay the victim for their full loss of earnings. 2 videos at 200,000+ views on youtube. That could easily be another $10,000 in loss of revenue.
Add to that slander and deformation of character as seen via twitter.
I'd say this is looking like a $100,000 in costs already.[/quote]
Still the point I was trying to make was that the actuall companies that hold the copyrights are usually not to blame in these cases and the only stupid thing they've done is hire these 3rd party companies; which admittedly is pretty stupid.