102 replies to this topic

[NoeL]

We've already explained this.  The visual, audio and other elements of a game that you don't have to obtain by playing it (AKA, >ALL< but the immersion) are being broadcast to the entire world.  The only other reason one would have to buy the game is to play it for themselves if they wanted to.  Your car example is bad because the interior of the car doesn't even make it drive-able.  What makes it drive-able is the control and what's under the hood.   What makes a game playable for most people?  Well, you have the graphical whores, the people who are just in it for the story, the people who like the soundtrack, the people who want to experience the story firsthand, and many other groups.  You satisfy all but those who want to play it for themselves.

Well let's consider a different type of game for a second - Minecraft. Are graphical whores interested? Nope. Story? Nope. Soundtrack? Possibly, but given how sporadic the music is in Minecraft watching an LP isn't the best way of accessing it - especially since there'd likely be commentary over the top of it.

 

If someone records themselves building an epic house in Minecraft, who owns that content? Mojang, who built the engine/graphics (assuming a default texture pack), or the player who built the house? Notch has stated that Youtube offered him to claim content on all the Minecraft videos, just like Nintendo, but he decided not to. So according to Youtube, Mojang SHOULD own all the Minecraft videos. In my mind, this is like Adobe claiming to own every image created in Photoshop. Minecraft isn't a game - it's a toy. It's part world to explore, part creative tool. Anything created within Minecraft should belong to the creator - not the guy that made the tool. But a video of someone creating a house is still a video of someone playing Minecraft.

 

Let's go with something that's less of a toy then - let's take a board game like Hero Quest. If someone records a game of Hero Quest, where a lot of the different monsters, traps and treasures are revealed to the public - cards and figurines that the artists put a lot of work into making for consumers - should Milton Bradley/Games Workshop own that video? After all, the video shows a lot of artwork that you'd otherwise need to buy the game to see. Shouldn't the consumer have the right to record themselves playing a game that they bought and own? If so, then what's the difference between recording a physical game with physical art assets and recording a digital game with digital art assets? It's not as if the digital art is in a format that can easily be ripped and used elsewhere. And if you think consumers shouldn't have the right to record their own property, where do you draw the line? If there's a painting hanging in the living room of a home movie, does the painter now own that home movie?

[Koh]

Hmm, I thought I explained that before as well.  When you purchase a product, all you purchase are the legal rights to access and use the product.  You do NOT gain any commercial rights around it.  The whole "I bought X, so I should be able to do with it what I please" mindset doesn't legally hold true.  You CAN record yourself using the product.  You CAN'T try to make money off of that recording, UNLESS you've some sort of written contract or agreement with the producers of that product.

[Nicholas Steel]

NoeL you are right that the stuff belongs to the creator and not the tool, but not for commercial use. And I would consider a sandbox game to be an exception.

[Shane]

Koh, this is like saying you can't become an artist and making money off it, you are using paint, brushes and paper from various companies. They are all legally property of others so why should the artist get paid? Because he or she created it for others to see.

 

So let's change the perspective from an artist to a LPer; LPers get paid for providing entertainment for their viewers not because they're so called "leaking" products from various companies. Stop and think: maybe YouTube only pay the LPers because they expand the YouTube community?

Edited by Shane, 28 May 2013 - 03:03 AM.

[NoeL]

When you purchase a product, all you purchase are the legal rights to access and use the product.

Except the only place this is the case is the entertainment industry, and those exceptions only exist to prevent piracy - something that isn't a factor regarding LPs. If you buy a car you are well within your rights to film it for commercial purposes. Same if you buy a dishwasher, or a ham sandwich, or a board game. So again, if it's legal to film a board game and sell it, why not a video game?

 

NoeL you are right that the stuff belongs to the creator and not the tool, but not for commercial use.

If you own something then you're entitled to make money off of it. That's how capitalism works. To say a creator can't make money off of a creation they own is ludicrous.

[Koh]

That's the "I bought it, and I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it!" attitude again.  Just because someone buys a Sonic the Hedgehog T-Shirt, that doesn't give them the right to make a million copies of it and sell it themselves.  You already know the reason to that.  It applies here as well.  It's all about infringing upon intellectual property and copyright laws.  Fair Use cannot be used as a crutch here.

Edited by Koh, 28 May 2013 - 06:55 AM.

[NoeL]

That's the "I bought it, and I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it!" attitude again.  Just because someone buys a Sonic the Hedgehog T-Shirt, that doesn't give them the right to make a million copies of it and sell it themselves. 

 

Except the only place this is the case is the entertainment industry, and those exceptions only exist to prevent piracy - something that isn't a factor regarding LPs. If you buy a car you are well within your rights to film it for commercial purposes. Same if you buy a dishwasher, or a ham sandwich, or a board game. So again, if it's legal to film a board game and sell it, why not a video game?

[strike]

When you buy a video game, you don't buy the right to watch the game, you buy the right to play the game.

The medium of video games is one that is interactive. YOU control what's going on. Watching an LP is not even participating in the same medium as a video game. When you watch an LP of a video game your watching a type of movie. When you play a video game- well it's kind of obvious... You play it...

What I'm saying is that by making money of an LP you are not pirating just like if you include a reference to a copyrighted product in a book, you're not pirating. Say in your book you include a reference to a certain song. Perhaps you even include a detailed description of the main character listening to this song. Because the copyrighted song is not even experienced in the same medium as when you would buy it, making money off of your book is not illegal just like making money off of an LP is not illegal because it features a video game.

The intellectual property that the video game maker owns is the right to experience the game, not the right to watch the game.

-Strike

Edited by strike, 29 May 2013 - 07:15 AM.

[Koh]

Wrong.  Intellectual Properties they own are as follows:  The Characters, The Setting, The Graphics, The Soundtrack, The Code.  Basically, everything that makes up the game.  Quoting lines from a song isn't the same as having the song actually play in the background.  You can get sued for that.  Same with video games, except they decided not to sue, and instead just put their own ads on the videos, netting them the money.  

[strike]

No, I am not wrong. Read what I said. All the things you listed, you experience in the game. I'm not going to repeat what I just said.

-Strike

P.S- Also, how is it not the same? Please explain yourself further.

Edited by strike, 29 May 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[Koh]

It's not the same because quoting or using a small clip of a product is FAR less severe than putting the entire product in what you're trying to make money off of.  When you do that, you're essentially repackaging their product and making money off it, hence why it's illegal.  Why is it the same case for games?  Because everything but your own personal interaction is there.  That doesn't mean it makes it null and void, it means that you're still repackaging their product, but just overlaying your commentary over the whole game, and selling that.  You're still in hot water, and CANNOT make money off of that. To believe otherwise is extremely asinine.  How would you feel if you made a game, put it on the market, had some random stranger take it, show the whole thing and commentate it, and then made money from just doing that to your product, without having first a contract with you, or some sort of royalties paid?

Edited by Koh, 29 May 2013 - 10:50 AM.

[strike]

As for the first part where you say that the difference is that a LP is more severe (Sorry, I would quote you but I don't know how), you say that LPs are illegal. Why does it matter at all how much you do it if doing it at all is illegal? Do you see what I mean?

For the second part, I would feel GREAT if someone did that! Who cares if the person is making money off of it as long as my product is getting advertised? But it doesn't really matter what me, or anybody else feels about it as long as it's legal, and that's what we are debating.

-Strike

[Koh]

Read this section about using Fair Use as a defense:  http://en.wikipedia....se_as_a_defense

It very much shows why showing too much of a product doesn't work.

 

What's considered "too much" is generally up to the creator of the original work, but it goes without saying that showing the entire game, rather than just a few small clips here and there to get a point across falls under "too much."

Edited by Koh, 29 May 2013 - 11:22 AM.