Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Why we are not RATTLED by SOPA?
-
17-12-2011 4:10pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I was under the assumption that would still come under the heading of Fair Use?Did my thesis on this issue (related it to the fighting game community, both in America and internationally). If passed, YouTube and many other sites that we wouldn't even consider would go under. Anyone who wants to make a tips video or CoD clip or whatever would suddenly be committing a felony (rather than the current "breaking copyright, but holder hasn't requested action).
Once again, this is the problem. Any good the Bill could have possibly done is overshadowed by the vagueness in the language as a result of it being drafted with either outside agendas in mind or plain ignorance of the issue.The wording of the bill is vague and as a result my area of interest, gaming videos, has been included with actual piracy. People who do not understand are making the rules and it is a shambles. Not happy with this Act and going to be very interested in the outcome of the vote.
0 -
I was under the assumption that would still come under the heading of Fair Use?
Once again, this is the problem. Any good the Bill could have possibly done is overshadowed by the vagueness in the language as a result of it being drafted with either outside agendas in mind or plain ignorance of the issue.
we really do know how they go over the top with laws in USA. where a burglar sued person, who he was about to burgle, because he broke his leg in his house by falling. funny enough poor fella was sentenced guilty and had to pay out scum bag for injury.
Now if there will be some conflict in the future, goverment will be able just shoot down all info that they dont want to get in to public hands. Its like a massive button for censorship, which will do a huge amount of damage to gamers and internet users. ( an all people in general)0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Icyseanfitz wrote: »problem with ea is that they have bought one of my favorite devs, so i kinda have to buy from the cnuts
principles are great once they dont get in the way eh0 -
-
Icyseanfitz wrote: »well ive bought bioware games since baulders gate, and i am pretty pissed that ea have them but whats a man to do
ea is the devil :P
well you either don't buy any more ea games, bioware or nay, or you throw your hands up and rejoice in your hypocrisy
personally ive got no issue with ea at all. too many people forged their opinion on them a decade ago and havent budged, regardless of the quality titles they release in the modern day0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I don't know, Viacom had no problem going after Google/Youtube, claiming the site should be more proactive in taking down copyrighted material. This basically equated to them asking them vet all uploaded material which is, as you can imagine, totally unfeasible. The point being, technically the bill directly affects all websites which feature user generated content as with enough infringing uploads, the site could be taken down. Whether this affects the bigger sites I used as an example practically, remains to be seen.Cuddlesworth wrote: »That won't effect the likes of youtube, twitter etc. But it will kill any attempt to start up a competitor to larger established sites. As a example in a games context, IGN could be threatened with a market share loss to a small rapidly expanding company. Do a quick deal with a publisher for better reviews, advertising or whatever, get a team of people to upload **** tons of that publishers IP and get them to make copyright infringements. Sopa means that small site would go under in days without much uproar. But you couldn't do the same to IGN, there would be too much backlash.
As for EMI Ireland's hilarious threat to sue the state over the loophole which stops them from going to court in order to force ISPs to block access to sites which offer illegal material, we'll see how far that gets when the EU get involved.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
As I mentioned earlier, my thesis has become topical once more...So here it is! Overheal, I will post it to the linked thread (sorry for the delay - had to read it once more to make sure it made sense!
)Mark O'Beirne wrote:The scene was the Evolution Gaming Series (EVO) fighting game tournament in 2004 in a ballroom in a Las Vegas hotel. Japan’s Daigo Umehara faced America’s Justin Wong in the Grand Final of Street Fighter III: Third Strike, but had just a sliver of life remaining. A mistake or blocked attack meant defeat. Third Strike had the novel feature of being able to parry an attack to avoid taking any damage. However, as crazy as it sounds, this meant pressing forward at the right moment…into the attack. As Justin unleashed a 17 hit super attack, it was Daigo’s only option. Any mistimed forward press or lapse in concentration would mean defeat.
As he parried each attack, Justin became more desperate. The situation was out of his control and he could only watch as Daigo’s character flashed blue with each successful parry. The crowd were on their feet from the moment Daigo started parrying and were screaming their lungs out throughout. After the last parry, Daigo pounced with a flurry of attacks that led into a super attack of his own.
That incident became known as ‘EVO Moment #37’ and went down in fighting game lore. It gained worldwide notoriety and was a popular clip on YouTube for years. Even seven years on, it is the stuff that legends are made of. In the build up to EVO 2011, that moment was recreated in an 8-bit retro art style and the release of Street Fighter III: Third Strike Online challenged players to complete the parry and finishing combo as part of a trial.
It was the moment that helped many people discover the fighting game scene and the idea of competition through videogames. Tournament organiser and commentator, Alex Jebailey, acknowledged the importance of this single moment. He said, “That’s pretty much what started a lot of this.” Videogame entertainment attorney David Graham said that it was a great video because it showcased the action itself and the reaction. He said that it showed “how we get hype and go crazy” and added that people seemed to like that. The video appeared to help encourage players to enter other tournaments and inspired people within the community to upload videos more.
However, the streaming and public broadcast of videogame content via services such as YouTube may be under threat with the proposition of S.978 in the United States which aims to “amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.” While boring, the current copyright law and the implications of change are important to understand. As it currently stands, streaming videogame content or uploading it to YouTube is illegal. It is classified as a misdemeanour, which comes with a penalty of up to one year in jail. It is rare to hear of someone uploading game content to YouTube being prosecuted. Many videogame developers tend to look the other way as additional coverage of a game helps them. This was the view of Jebailey and, fighting game talk show presenter, Ryan Gutierrez among others. Gutierrez was keen to highlight that people watching highly skilled players may be more inclined to purchase a game because it looks fun. He emphasised that streams and YouTube content can help boost game sales “if you take advantage of the fact that all these people are basically advertising your game for free”. Senior Vice-President of Capcom, Christian Svensson, has also stated that “historically we have been helped by these activities.”
The revised bill would make streaming and providing YouTube content of videogames a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. Graham explained that under American copyright law, there is no difference between videogame content and other media such as film. He said, “The audio-visual part of the videogame, the sights and sounds on screen, are indistinguishable legally from a TV show or a film.” As many of the fighting game community outlined, it is unlikely that videogame streamers and YouTube producers were the targets of this bill. The explanation from Graham provides an unfortunate reality: under the new bill, they would be targets.
Live streams and YouTube content are beneficial for both the gaming community and game developers. As Gutierrez said, it is essentially free advertising for game developers. Perhaps, if after watching a live stream or some footage of a fighting game tournament, people will feel more inclined to purchase a game. It also raises the awareness of titles or keeps them in the public consciousness. Irish tournament organiser Daniel Madden mentioned that there were no major releases of fighting games for several years, but videos on YouTube kept fighting games “in the collective psyche” of gamers.
Naturally, the gaming community has benefited from content being published on the internet. Jebailey commented that “streaming is the big thing now.” The fighting game community saw rapid increases in the number of players attending tournaments and the number of people watching footage. Graham explained that the parry video featuring Daigo Umehara and Justin Wong was one of the reasons that more people started recording footage. As a commentator, he saw that several years ago they were delighted if 1,000 people watched a stream, whereas the EVO finals in 2011 attracted over two million unique viewers from around the world over the course of the weekend.
This scene grows and builds itself organically. Jebailey and Gutierrez highlighted that each stream and tournament helps the next. As Gutierrez said, “a rising tide raises all ships.” It is a cycle that is not reliant on external factors and one that any tournament, stream or YouTube channel can become a part of. In fact, Graham highlighted that smaller tournaments are very important for getting new viewers and inviting new people into the community. He said that these tournaments allow viewers to get to know the players and their personalities. This builds an emotional connection so that when that player is competing at a major event, viewers will want to cheer for them. Both Gutierrez and his partner in crime from Cross Counter TV, Mike Ross, are personalities within the fighting game community. They have fans that cheer them on passionately and are genuinely disappointed if results don’t fall favourably.
This is also relevant closer to home. Irish tournament broadcaster, Brian Quigley, has been recording videos from Irish tournaments for over a year. He has seen that these videos “are attracting more and more people to the scene”. Firstly, they advertise the existence of a competitive scene and a community, and it also builds this connection with viewers that Graham mentioned. This feeds into what Jebailey mentioned: “By doing all these YouTube videos, it gets more content out there for people to be more aware of Street Fighter and the scene.” This can only be a good thing for communities around the world.
YouTube videos have a worldwide audience because of their nature, which means that viewers from overseas can become fans of American or Japanese players, but Irish players can gain fans of their own. Quigley highlighted that when a group attended a tournament in France, several of the French players knew of Irish players and actually liked watching their footage. As Madden said, streams and YouTube videos “have made names a lot bigger”. This clearly applies to all names within the scene rather than the top dogs within the tournament circuit. Naturally, the scale of the following varies depending on the player and the scene that they are involved in.
Irish players have grown fond of tournament streams and many could be considered fans of the American scene because of videos and streams. Both Quigley and Madden said that they would be more inclined to watch a stream rather than TV now. Several of the fighting game community attended an event in Dublin to watch the EVO live stream overnight. Streams have encouraged this passion to the extent that players travelled from around Ireland to attend this event, cheer on their favourite players and hopefully catch a glimpse of an Irish representative. Quigley said that without the extensive coverage, it is unlikely that he would be following the scene as closely.
As it currently stands, the only notable copyright case in recent years was due to leaked videos involving new characters for Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition. Capcom was affected by this and notified YouTube to get the footage taken down. As a result of YouTube’s policy on copyright infringements, some accounts went over the number of allowed “strikes” and were deleted entirely. This is something that annoyed Gutierrez as it put Cross Counter in a difficult situation as well. This “knee jerk” reaction as he called it made content producers, including the Cross Counter team, afraid to put up videos. He understood why they did it, but at the same time he thought that they could have used it as publicity and simply admitted that the characters were in the game, just waiting to be unlocked.
It is this fear that can be seen regarding the latest anti-streaming bill. The penalties are too great that, if implemented, broadcasters and content producers will want to take the risk. Fear of being prosecuted will hurt the competitive scene and the communities that have built up around fighting games. This is one aspect that was agreed on across the board.
An anti-streaming bill would certainly impact immediately on the competitive scene within the United States. However, its effect could potentially be felt in Ireland. As Graham explained, it may cause companies such as YouTube to reconsider uploading policies and may result in a blanket ban on videogame content unless producers have proof of a license. Jebailey and Gutierrez highlighted that this bill could hurt game developers in the long run. Gutierrez said that YouTube videos almost act as a shared property with developers providing the medium through which players provide the performance.
Capcom’s response to the proposed bill is that the community has certainly helped the company and that the efforts of people with good intentions will be supported. Capcom has also implemented a license into Street Fighter III: Third Strike Edition Online that allows users to post their videos directly to YouTube, and indicated that it is looking into enabling streaming directly from games. The fighting game community is aware that it is not videogame developers coming after them; if they wanted to, they would already. The issue with the wording outlined is that it implies that licenses for some titles will be awarded individually rather than across the board. This would mean that all content producers would have to enter negotiations with Capcom and acquire a license to distribute content. Graham noted that “historically, companies have been pretty reticent to give that out”. The likes of EVO and other large scale tournaments would be fine in this regard, but smaller tournaments that are vital for the continued growth and exposure of the scene could have more difficulty.
It could be easy to dismiss this as scare mongering. After all, American law has no direct consequences internationally. Broadcasters in Ireland cannot face a prison sentence. However, other governments are starting to take notice of streaming and its influence. The Italian government recently outlined a copyright bill that would implicate anyone accused of breaking copyright law. One of the most worrying elements of this bill is that anyone can accuse a person of breaking copyright law, rather than just the copyright holder. What is the penalty for being accused of breaking copyright law? The alleged offender would be banned from the internet. While this sounds like something designed to catch out people who are unfamiliar with how the internet works, similar to warning against typing “Google” into Google, it signifies that streaming is considered a threat to traditional media.
It is the uncertainty involved that is unsettling for content producers and fighting game enthusiasts worldwide. There is nothing about this bill that appears straightforward. Graham explained that there is no way to write a law that specifically targets the streaming or uploading of TV shows and film, and so on, without incorporating videogames. Even though the international reach of this bill would be limited, YouTube’s base in America could make all content producers feel an effect of one kind or another. While the bill may not pass, as several interviewees said, “You just never know.” There is a long road ahead, but gamers, viewers and content producers must keep their ears to the ground.🤪
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
I don't know, Viacom had no problem going after Google/Youtube, claiming the site should be more proactive in taking down copyrighted material. This basically equated to them asking them vet all uploaded material which is, as you can imagine, totally unfeasible. The point being, technically the bill directly affects all websites which feature user generated content as with enough infringing uploads, the site could be taken down. Whether this affects the bigger sites I used as an example practically, remains to be seen.
As for EMI Ireland's hilarious threat to sue the state over the loophole which stops them from going to court in order to force ISPs to block access to sites which offer illegal material, we'll see how far that gets when the EU get involved.
I think the difference here is that the larger organisations can weather the storm and should in theory find a way around it, the smaller ones won't be able too. Either way, we will find out on the 21st. Not much we can do here, in little old backwards Ireland.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement