23 replies to this topic

[Koh]

The definitive thread to have a healthy discussion about all the above.  Let the games begin~

 

 

Maybe this is just me, but I literally don't understand why some businesses are so overprotective of their IP: "Someone is making a fangame? That's so horrible! WE MUST SHUT THEM DOWN!"

Personally, I would be flattered by the existence of fangames of my work. Just as long as they give proper credit and they don't hurt my sales. Which they won't.

 

I would argue that inaction is just as much a use of your legal rights as taking action. Turns out to be more beneficial in the end. Well, besides straight movie piracy... But even then, you're probably still not losing money because the people who pirate aren't going to pay for the content anyway. Or if they are, the money will end up landing in Redbox or Netflix, or they'll check it out from a public library. So you might as well outlaw libraries and rental companies while you're at it.

 

I'll start by replying to this.

 

Your first section just depends on the people really.  You may be more lax about the whole situation, but some other people would feel cheated, especially if they aren't given a cut.  "They use MY characters/music/setting/etc. and make a bunch of money?  And they didn't even pay me royalties!?"  You have to understand both sides....  I personally wouldn't mind derivative works that are free, but if they're going to be sold, I want a cut for them using my ideas.

 

Yes, inaction is just as much of an exercise of rights as taking action.  However, it also hurts the companies chances of winning lawsuits for more escalated, but similar cases of copyright law violations.  For example, they ignore some fangame that accepts donations and sales for $1 each, and goes after another fangame that sold a lot of copies and made well over $1,000,000.  Assuming the court has knowledge of the first fangame, the first thing they'd ask is "Well, why didn't you take action against this other game, and decided to take action against this one?"   Being picky and choosy with violations of the law doesn't look good in the courts eyes.  It's like that saying "If you let one person do it, you have to let everyone do it."

Edited by Koh, 05 February 2015 - 07:22 AM.

[TheLegend_njf]

Okay. To be honest you have a good honest opinion about the subject. But I failed to really see the point you are trying to get across. :/

[Fabbrizio]

Your first section just depends on the people really.  You may be more lax about the whole situation, but some other people would feel cheated, especially if they aren't given a cut.  "They use MY characters/music/setting/etc. and make a bunch of money?  And they didn't even pay me royalties!?"  You have to understand both sides....  I personally wouldn't mind derivative works that are free, but if they're going to be sold, I want a cut for them using my ideas.

Has anyone ever actually argued in favor of selling fan games? I've never heard of this actually happening, so from my perspective, this point is moot.
 

Yes, inaction is just as much of an exercise of rights as taking action.  However, it also hurts the companies chances of winning lawsuits for more escalated, but similar cases of copyright law violations.  For example, they ignore some fangame that accepts donations and sales for $1 each, and goes after another fangame that sold a lot of copies and made well over $1,000,000.  Assuming the court has knowledge of the first fangame, the first thing they'd ask is "Well, why didn't you take action against this other game, and decided to take action against this one?"   Being picky and choosy with violations of the law doesn't look good in the courts eyes.  It's like that saying "If you let one person do it, you have to let everyone do it."

Then it's the court system that needs to be fixed, is it not? Clearly, the difference between selling a game, and accepting donations while giving away the game for free is huge. If the court system doesn't see that difference, then the error is theirs.

Also, agreed with NewJourneysFire. An argument needs a conclusion, you've just listed a bunch of premises. Basic argument construction.

Edited by Fabbrizio, 05 February 2015 - 10:27 AM.

[Koh]

Well I was using fangames as an example, but it applies to any derivative work, including Let's Plays.  That's why companies are able to take these copyright infringement actions against videos that make use of their material without permission/the rights to do  so.  For profit or not, but it usually hits those for profit more often.  Viacom is a big one.

 

Conclusion?  I guess....I'm for doing derivative works for free, but against trying to make money off of them without paying some kind of royalties for using material that isn't yours.  Not only is it illegal according to current copyright laws, but it seems morally reprehensible.

Edited by Koh, 05 February 2015 - 10:56 AM.

[Fabbrizio]

Not only is it illegal according to current copyright laws, but it seems morally reprehensible.

Except that it's neither illegal nor morally wrong, and you've flat-out ignored any argument that demonstrates this.

This is clearly going nowhere. I'm done with this particular debate.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Well I was using fangames as an example, but it applies to any derivative work, including Let's Plays.  That's why companies are able to take these copyright infringement actions against videos that make use of their material without permission/the rights to do  so.  For profit or not, but it usually hits those for profit more often.  Viacom is a big one.

 

Conclusion?  I guess....I'm for doing derivative works for free, but against trying to make money off of them without paying some kind of royalties for using material that isn't yours.  Not only is it illegal according to current copyright laws, but it seems morally reprehensible.

It's not illegal man. We've been through this, right?

[Koh]

Well maybe illegal wasn't the right word, but it's certainly a gray area.

 

Otherwise, these take downs and content ID matches wouldn't happen, and they'd have no power to DO the take downs and content ID matches.  I'm only citing what happens and what continues to happen.  It may not be illegal per say, but it's certainly SOMETHING if they're allowed to do these things, am I wrong?

 

  @Robin:  I'll be seeing that video in about 20 minutes...streaming a class at the moment, lol.

[Fabbrizio]

Well maybe illegal wasn't the right word, but it's certainly a gray area.
 
Otherwise, these take downs and content ID matches wouldn't happen, and they'd have no power to DO the take downs and content ID matches.  I'm only citing what happens and what continues to happen.  It may not be illegal per say, but it's certainly SOMETHING if they're allowed to do these things, am I wrong?

It's youtube policy, it has nothing to do with the legal system. Well, it does in the sense that youtube doesn't want to have to worry about their idea of fair use matching up with the judicial idea of fair use, but it's not directly legal, that's just fear of law.

I know I said I wasn't coming back to this discussion but I've calmed down and I think there is honestly a point that needs to be made here.

[Koh]

Things are getting interesting though~  I do think the copyright laws need to be modernized to account for advancements in technology and society.  The question is, how?   I saw that Jim Sterling video, and he does make some valid points.  But where could there even begin to be middle ground?  Such that the LPers get their pay, the companies get their cut, and all is well with the world?  If the LPers get ALL the money, the companies are fussy.  If the companies try to get some of the money, the LPers are fussy.  

 

If copyright laws were modified, Youtube's policy may or may not change.  It all depends on how closely aligned they want to be with it, or how much they just want to avoid altercations altogether.

Edited by Koh, 05 February 2015 - 12:31 PM.

[Fabbrizio]

It really would have to be taken case-by-case. When dealing with human dynamics, there are no binaries. Everything is one big gray area that gets less fuzzy at the poles. Let's take some popular Let's Players case by case just for example.

PeanutButterGamer - given his tendency of playing hacks/mods rather than the game itself, in most cases, the product he's showcasing is not the game as the developers intended it, and his comments are on the hack itself. Probably no royalties owed in most cases.

Markiplier, PewDiePie, etc In that vein - Generally play indie games made by smaller developers who don't have time to worry about royalties and are grateful just for the exposure. Probably don't owe royalties.

Game Grumps, ModernWarNegro, Games With Hank - use the gameplay as the backdrop to other conversations. Probably some royalties owed for visuals, but audio is not significant in the mix and would not be worth the developer's time to pick apart. In the case of Game Grumps, a lot of the games are early console abandonware, so quite a bit of the time, royalties would not be claimed.

Two Best Friends - similar to PBG, except instead of mods, they have some gimmick for team play (for example, their Nuzlocke run). Probably owes some royalties.

NintendoCapriSun - plays almost exclusively the recognizable titles for nintendo consoles. Probably owes the most royalties in this list, assuming any are owed.

Again, this is only in the hypothetical situation in which developers actually deserve the royalties.

Edited by Fabbrizio, 05 February 2015 - 12:46 PM.

[Koh]

I could get on board with it being a case by case basis.  That's how fair use has to be disputed when it comes to court anyway, so extending the same sort of treatment to who does or doesn't need to pay royalties seems fair.

 

Yeah, I don't think the indie developers would have any contention with the exposure either.  I'd certainly like for whatever I create to be passed around all over the internet down the line...

 

When it comes to the royalties, what kind of percentage do you think would be fair?  Unless you'd think those would also need to be case by case as well, in which that may sound reasonable, but also like it'd cause problems with other people who have to pay more of a percentage.

[Fabbrizio]

Well, given the nature of AdSense, the amount of royalties would directly tie to the amount of revenue. Everyone earns a slightly different Revenue Per Thousand. I earn $0.50 per thousand views. Last I checked, Markiplier earns something like $9 or $10 per thousand views. So the royalties would probably have to be not just linearly scaled, but graduated similar to the US tax system (10% is a lot more detrimental of a cut when you're earning $200 a year from youtube than when you're earning $200 a day, and Nintendo stands to gain nothing by micromanaging percents of minuscule profits).

Here's an alternate proposition, though - what if we spread a trend for Let's Players to treat the games less as a backdrop and more as a product placement? If there were a tendency to recommend purchasing the games when they're deserving of the recommendation? Even if this doesn't catch on, I'm going to start doing this. If nothing else, it will make me feel better about my Let's Plays.

Edited by Fabbrizio, 05 February 2015 - 01:14 PM.

[Koh]

You mean sort of like what ProJared does with his reviews?  He tries to be as fair as he can with his opinions and ratings on the games he reviews, and tells how much of a good buy, curiosity, or whatever the game is.  I'm not sure how well that'd be accomplished with LPs, since you're going through the whole game.  Unless you mean something that's like, appended to the end of the series for that game.  

 

I'd think that'd be a good way to close them out.  "So overall, this whole experience was okay.  It's not a great game, but it's not terrible either.  It's something that'll wet your palette."

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Koh, on the subject of Nintendo's new program, it should be mentioned that it affects anyone who uses video of Nintendo games - not just Let's Players. The larger channels that are affiliated with a Youtube network probably won't be hit too hard by it, if at all, but those who are working alone most likely will.

 

This is not to prove anything, I just wanted to point it out because so far the conversation has really used Let's Plays as a jumping off point. I'm not sure if ProJared is affiliated with a netwrok (though I would imagine he is), but this is an issue for him because he, as a critic, should not be affiliated with Nintendo in any way, that would create a scenario where he's basically 'in bed' with Nintendo, and as a critic that obviously isn't something that makes it easy for your viewers to trust you. In other words, this deal is a no go for people like ProJared, TotalBiscuit and so on, yet Nintendo's consequences will most likely affect people like them.

[Fabbrizio]

Well Koh, I think you're still missing the argument I'm making. When a game publisher sells a video game, they're not selling the experience of watching the game, they're selling the experience of playing it. This is especially true in the case of Nintendo's game design. You're not buying the game to see everything that happens start to finish. Wikipedia can tell you that. You're buying the game because it's fun to play. Fun is Nintendo's primary product (setting them apart from a large cut of the triple-A market), and you can't export even a fraction of that fun through a mere video. A person who was likely to buy the game before watching a Let's Play of it, is equally likely to buy it afterwards, unless of course the game has certain fatal flaws, in which case, it's not that the Let's Play is being used as an alternative to buying the game, but rather, a warning against buying it by promoting informed consumerism.

So as long as a Let's Player points out every so often when they're enjoying a game that no seriously you should go buy this, it's awesome, or just any sort of call to action to show support for the developers, I think it would be enough. Because if the LPer is enjoying the game, it's not "selling out" for them to say so every so often, and if they're not enjoying the game, they don't have to give their recommendation.

Edited by Fabbrizio, 05 February 2015 - 04:18 PM.