Phil Fish working on a new game

[natkoden]

It's called transformative work and it's Fair Use, people don't watch PewDiePie's videos for the games, they watch them for PewDiePie, his reactions and his commentaries (getting that through to someone's head might be difficult, I know). The games merely receive free advertisment in the process and unless we're talking about 100% linear story-based single player games, broadcasting captured footage does not take away anything from the actual product - you can't "play" a YouTube video like you'd play a video game. Essentially this is the argument along the lines of "I should pay $2 for every photo of bread I see online because that's totally like eating the whole loaf" - it's not, it's just a photo of the actual product, a fraction of the whole. There's a good reason why a lot of video game companies work directly with YouTubers - it's just a cheap and extremely effective way to market their products.

Exactly.

We're crazy.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

While I enjoyed his statements about the Japanese gaming scene, he's still a whiny bitch and also an indie dev, so he's shit.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

While I enjoyed his statements about the Japanese gaming scene, he's still a whiny bitch and also an indie dev, so he's shit.

That sounds interesting. Link to this anti-weaboo rant?

 

[Guild McCommunist]

That sounds interesting. Link to this anti-weaboo rant?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...fish-declares-modern-japanese-games-just-suck

 

[grossaffe]

It's called transformative work and it's Fair Use, people don't watch PewDiePie's videos for the games, they watch them for PewDiePie, his reactions and his commentaries (getting that through to someone's head might be difficult, I know). The games merely receive free advertisement in the process and unless we're talking about 100% linear story-based single player games shared in their entirety, broadcasting captured footage does not take away anything from the actual product - you can't "play" a YouTube video like you'd play a video game. Essentially this is the argument along the lines of "I should pay $2 for every photo of bread I see online because that's totally like eating the whole loaf" - it's not, it's just a photo of the actual product, a fraction of the whole. There's a good reason why a lot of video game companies work directly with YouTubers - it's just a cheap and extremely effective way to market their products.

Except that there is no precedence for let's plays to be covered under fair use.

 

[Dork]

That sounds interesting. Link to this anti-weaboo rant?

Damn, I can't find the video anywhere.

It wasn't even a rant, it was just him stating bluntly that japanese games suck and they need to get with the times when an independent jap dev asked him how he can improve his games. It was really dumb.

 

[Foxi4]

Except that there is no precedence for let's plays to be covered under fair use.

Games are multimedia like any other, gameplay footage is video like any other. Can't fault YouTubers because the law is lagging 10-20 years behind the times, as it's often the case.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

Damn, I can't find the video anywhere.

It wasn't even a rant, it was just him stating bluntly that japanese games suck and they need to get with the times when an independent jap dev asked him how he can improve his games. It was really dumb.

How is it dumb? He was totally right.

 

[grossaffe]

Games are multimedia like any other, gameplay footage is video like any other. Can't fault YouTubers because the law is lagging 10-20 years behind the times, as it's often the case.

The videos are making money off of copyrighted material without permission. If MST3K had to get licenses, I don't see why PewDiePie doesn't have to.

 

[Dork]

How is it dumb? He was totally right.

your right how silly of me

 

[Foxi4]

The videos are making money off of copyrighted material without permission. If MST3K had to get licenses, I don't see why PewDiePie doesn't have to.

Can you explain to me why a movie review or a commentary is Fair Use, but a video game commentary or review is not? The express purpose of such work is exactly the same, only the medium varies.

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Ergo reviews and commentaries are Fair Use, thank you. You might argue about Let's Plays with no commentary whatsoever, just footage, but that's about it. Moreover, U.S. Copyright Law does not explicitly specify the percentage of work that is allowed to be shared - if an altercation with a copyright holder does occur, such matters are judged upon on an individual basis, so the "completeness" argument goes right out of the window. Of course here we're pretending that the U.S. copyright law is all-encompassing and binding all of us, which it isn't.

Of course in all such cases it's usually preferable to obtain the copyright holder's permission to use the content, but it's not required at all.

 

[grossaffe]

Can you explain to me why a movie review or a commentary is Fair Use, but a video game commentary or review is not? The express purpose of such work is exactly the same, only the medium varies.

Ergo reviews and commentaries are Fair Use, thank you. You might argue about Let's Plays with no commentary whatsoever, just footage, but that's about it. Moreover, U.S. Copyright Law does not explicitly specify the percentage of work that is allowed to be shared - if an altercation with a copyright holder does occur, such matters are judged upon on an individual basis, so the "completeness" argument goes right out of the window. Of course here we're pretending that the U.S. copyright law is all-encompassing and binding all of us, which it isn't.

Of course in all such cases it's usually preferable to obtain the copyright holder's permission to use the content, but it's not required at all.

you conveniently left out this part:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Reviews only show clips/excerpts from the work that they are reviewing; they do not show the whole movie, game, book, whatever. Let's Plays are more akin to Mystery Science Theater 3000 in that they show the whole thing (or at least large chunks) while adding their own commentary on top of it. MST3K had to acquire the licenses from copyrighted movies in order to do this (or as they often did, used movies that were public domain).

 

[Foxi4]

you conveniently left out this part: Reviews only show clips/excerpts from the work that they are reviewing; they do not show the whole movie, game, book, whatever. Let's Plays are more akin to Mystery Science Theater 3000 in that they show the whole thing (or at least large chunks) while adding their own commentary on top of it. MST3K had to acquire the licenses from copyrighted movies in order to do this (or as they often did, used movies that were public domain).

You're quoting the part of the section concerning factors determining whether an existing work is Fair Use by a judge if an altercation occurs, and even those are vague and entirely up to the judge's subjective opinion. These are not an actual outlines of what Fair Use is, hence I left them out.

It's often hard to judge what "chunk" a Let's Play covers, it depends on the genre of the game. Let's take a fighting game for instance - does the complete arcade ladder equal 100% of the game? No, of course not - in a fighting game the "meat" of the package are the fighting mechanics which can't really be "shared", they have to be "played".

Again, you have to apply an individual per-game judgement here - a complete from cover to cover let's play of a story-oriented linear game is obviously crossing the line while a few excerpts are fine. On the other hand, 101 videos of multiplayer Call of Duty matches do not comprise a substantial portion of the whole product because there is no "content" that loses its value in the process of sharing it, see point 4 - the whole point of a multiplayer match is competitive fun and that remains intact, no matter how many times you share it.

The Mystery Science Theater is a very good example here since that kind of transformative work does make watching the full movie effectively pointless, which is why it dealt with Public Domain movies, so no market value of the product was lost. Such "complete" let's plays or commentaries do need to be monitored, but even so, we can't forget that the act of watching a video game being played and the act of actually playing it are two completely different things and the "loss" incured by publishing videos containing gameplay footage, if any, is subject to many variables.

 

[natkoden]

While I enjoyed his statements about the Japanese gaming scene, he's still a whiny bitch and also an indie dev, so he's shit.

oh, god...

 

[grossaffe]

You're quoting the part of the section concerning factors determining whether an existing work is Fair Use by a judge if an altercation occurs, and even those are vague and entirely up to the judge's subjective opinion. These are not an actual outlines of what Fair Use is, hence I left them out.

It's absolutely integral to the matter at hand. They are factors in whether or not something would be deemed fair use and they even show how your typical movie review differs from a Let's Play using those criteria.

It's often hard to judge what "chunk" a Let's Play covers, it depends on the genre of the game. Let's take a fighting game for instance - does the complete arcade ladder equal 100% of the game? No, of course not - in a fighting game the "meat" of the package are the fighting mechanics which can't really be "shared", they have to be "played".

Again, you have to apply an individual per-game judgement here - a complete from cover to cover let's play of a story-oriented linear game is obviously crossing the line while a few excerpts are fine. On the other hand, 101 videos of multiplayer Call of Duty matches do not comprise a substantial portion of the whole product because there is no "content" that loses its value in the process of sharing it, see point 4 - the whole point of a multiplayer match is competitive fun and that remains intact, no matter how many times you share it.

I don't think our disagreement is too big here. One part of the criteria mentioned that you initially left out was "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work", so one could make the argument that non-story arena multiplayer type stuff does not diminish the value of the copyrighted work. The problem is, though, that since there really hasn't been any precedent set for Let's Plays, we don't have enough to work with in trying to estimate what would legally be considered fair use. How much video from a campaign could you show? There's a lot of grey area in the present in regards to Let's Plays, although some are clearly darker than others, and until we get some legal precedence, it will be difficult to know where to draw the line.

The Mystery Science Theatre is a very good example here since that kind of transformative work does make watching the full movie effectively pointless, which is why it dealt with Public Domain movies only, so no market value of the product was lost. Such "complete" let's plays or commentaries do need to be monitored, but even so, we can't forget that the act of watching a video game being played and the act of actually playing it are two completely different things and the "loss" incured by publishing videos containing gameplay footage, if any, is subject to many variables.

They didn't deal with only public domain, but when they used copyrighted material, they acquired the license allowing them to do so.
As for gameplay v. footage, that's part of what makes this such a grey area, and until a court rules on it, I can't consider most of it to be Fair Use.

 

[Foxi4]

It's absolutely integral to the matter at hand. They are factors in whether or not something would be deemed fair use and they even show how your typical movie review differs from a Let's Play using those criteria.

I don't think our disagreement is too big here. One part of the criteria mentioned that you initially left out was "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work", so one could make the argument that non-story arena multiplayer type stuff does not diminish the value of the copyrighted work. The problem is, though, that since there really hasn't been any precedent set for Let's Plays, we don't have enough to work with in trying to estimate what would legally be considered fair use. How much video from a campaign could you show? There's a lot of grey area in the present in regards to Let's Plays, although some are clearly darker than others, and until we get some legal precedence, it will be difficult to know where to draw the line.

They didn't deal with only public domain, but when they used copyrighted material, they acquired the license allowing them to do so.
As for gameplay v. footage, that's part of what makes this such a grey area, and until a court rules on it, I can't consider most of it to be Fair Use.

In other words, we agree on the key elements of the overall debate, except I consider it Fair Use by extension while you refrain from calling it that until a legal precedence is established, which is an equally good position. Glad to see us reaching some common ground.

 

[grossaffe]

In other words, we agree on the key elements of the overall debate, except I consider it Fair Use by extension while you refrain from calling it that unless a legal precedence is established, which is an equally good position. Glad to see us reaching some common ground.

Sounds like a pretty good summary. We do have the ability to agree on a thing here and there when it's not directly related to taste in video games.

 

[Gahars]

In other words, we agree on the key elements of the overall debate, except I consider it Fair Use by extension while you refrain from calling it that unless a legal precedence is established, which is an equally good position. Glad to see us reaching some common ground.

Sounds like a pretty good summary. We do have the ability to agree on a thing here and there when it's not directly related to taste in video games.

Civil agreement? Mutual respect? Boo! Where's the mudslinging, the hurt feelings, the posterior paddling?

God damn, this thread is really going down the drain.

 

[vayanui8]

The real irony in his rant against lets plays is the fact that he actually said we could pirate Fez in one of his rages
http://segmentnext.com/2013/04/24/angry-fez-fans-should-just-pirate-the-game-phil-fish/

 

[cdoty]

...i still think he is kind of an asshole, especially with what happened this morning....

He returns to form without missing a beat.