Dev pulls bad critique from youtube. Too far?

Retr0gamer

Oh definitely but is any judge really going to rule against what TB does as not being fair use. He just shows about 10-15 minutes of a game, usually the start and reviews it. If the developers actually had a case they would pursue it but they really don't have a case at all. What TB does is well within the definitions of fair use even with those definitions being so vague.

Add to that the developer can hardly feign ignorance that they sent out a review copy to one of the most popular reviewers without knowing his modus operandi that he has been doing for months if not years.

johnny_ultimate

Oh no, I agree this case is pretty much cut and dry given the circumstances As I stated earlier, I'd agree Total Biscuit is on the right side of fair. I think generally, though, there's an interesting debate to be had on the subject, and I personally don't agree full length Lets Plays should be immune to takedown notices just because someone is talking over them.

Taylor365

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh no, I agree this case is pretty much cut and dry given the circumstances As I stated earlier, I'd agree Total Biscuit is on the right side of fair. I think generally, though, there's an interesting debate to be had on the subject, and I personally don't agree full length Lets Plays should be immune to takedown notices just because someone is talking over them.

I'd agree something has to be put in place regarding fair use of material. I'm sure many policies are in need of updating.

I've watched a few let's plays which, to be perfectly frank, allow me to experience the whole game without buying it. An example would be a lets play of The Walking Dead.

NTMK

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh no, I agree this case is pretty much cut and dry given the circumstances As I stated earlier, I'd agree Total Biscuit is on the right side of fair. I think generally, though, there's an interesting debate to be had on the subject, and I personally don't agree full length Lets Plays should be immune to takedown notices just because someone is talking over them.

What im amazed by is that Nintendo will claim copyright over their 2min trailer for the new pokemon games being shown on a 3 hour podcast while about 20 partners are doing full lets plays without nintendo action

Retr0gamer

NTMK wrote: »

What im amazed by is that Nintendo will claim copyright over their 2min trailer for the new pokemon games being shown on a 3 hour podcast while about 20 partners are doing full lets plays without nintendo action

Well Nintendo definitely aren't in the right in that case either unless of course they claim copyright over a trailer they made... which kind of defeats the purpose of promotional material. Then again Nintendo have always acted in their own like bubble of bizarro-land.

ShadowHearth

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well Nintendo definitely aren't in the right in that case either unless of course they claim copyright over a trailer they made... which kind of defeats the purpose of promotional material. Then again Nintendo have always acted in their own like bubble of bizarro-land.

I actually would love to hear that podcast. Now I wount. Japanese Companies have a really stupid Idea about youtube, they completely missunderstand it.

Retr0gamer

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I actually would love to hear that podcast. Now I wount. Japanese Companies have a really stupid Idea about youtube, they completely missunderstand it.

They don't. Nintendo just doesn't understand the intrawebs.

ancapailldorcha

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh no, I agree this case is pretty much cut and dry given the circumstances As I stated earlier, I'd agree Total Biscuit is on the right side of fair. I think generally, though, there's an interesting debate to be had on the subject, and I personally don't agree full length Lets Plays should be immune to takedown notices just because someone is talking over them.

Gaming is such a grey area though which is what makes things so interesting. Obviously, posting a full film completely eliminates the incentive for people to go and pay for it. More and more games have become narrative driven so people doing first impressions can easily ruin people's enjoyment of the game. I've not played it, but I imagine if I saw the a playthrough of Dear Esther then it'd completely put me off buying it whereas, seeing a mate playing FFX would have strongly encouraged me to go out and buy it had he not offered to lend it to me.

NTMK

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well Nintendo definitely aren't in the right in that case either unless of course they claim copyright over a trailer they made... which kind of defeats the purpose of promotional material. Then again Nintendo have always acted in their own like bubble of bizarro-land.

Its their own trailer and ya nintendo jp are mildly insane when it comes to the internet. Nintendo America (and SEGA America) both said they had nothing to do with the youtube copyright takedowns and it was the work or their insane parents

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I actually would love to hear that podcast. Now I wount. Japanese Companies have a really stupid Idea about youtube, they completely missunderstand it.

Its still up on youtube they just edited out the trailer afaik

ShadowHearth

NTMK wrote: »

Its their own trailer and ya nintendo jp are mildly insane when it comes to the internet. Nintendo America (and SEGA America) both said they had nothing to do with the youtube copyright takedowns and it was the work or their insane parents



Its still up on youtube they just edited out the trailer afaik

Cheers m8. Just found it! up I go! I wish they would throw away Jessy Cox though.

COYVB

Grumpypants wrote: »

what you should be asking is if you made a YouTube channel called total biscuit zero punctuation game reviews, used his cartoon style and put on a British accent to start making game reviews, how long do you think it would be before he asked for it to be taken down ?

Or do you think he would support your right to free speech ?

that's absolutely nothing like the case in point. a more accurate thing to say would be, would TB close this thread because it mentions him and is generating traffic for boards

COYVB

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If I released a critical audio commentary of Captain Phillips and released it on top of the full film on a YouTube video, that would of course and rightly be considered copyright infringement. The criticism attached doesn't negate that. If I released a video essay on the subject, including a few explanatory clips but mostly me talking to camera, then things are a bit more complicated, and that's where fair use could be argued and IMO justified (probably negated by the fact I had to pirate the film to get said clips, but that's an aside).

and if you were a well known video game youtube video creator and you contacted a company asking for review code so you could cover their latest video game, who agreed, while elsewhere saying that making videos was okay, and concurrently allowed dozens of other (albeit less nasty) people to make videos without issue, i doubt fair use would be in question

Duggy747

Hell hath no fury like a gaming community scorned.

Very silly way to go about that, causing a complete opposite reaction by increasing TB's critique of the game. Seemingly, a decision made by someone who hasn't seen the backlash from the community towards other scenarios like WarZ.

ScumLord

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

and I personally don't agree full length Lets Plays should be immune to takedown notices just because someone is talking over them.

It can depend on the game, for the most part I don't see the point in them, why would I want to see someone play through the likes of a batman game or GTA, it would be more like torture watching someone else play a game I was waiting to play.

I did watch some fairly long lets play videos for Euro truck simulator 2 though and they convinced me to buy the game.

Some games lose nothing by watching someone else play, and sim would fall under that category.

Retr0gamer

ScumLord wrote: »

It can depend on the game, for the most part I don't see the point in them, why would I want to see someone play through the likes of a batman game or GTA, it would be more like torture watching someone else play a game I was waiting to play.

Well you seem to be the odd one out when it comes to the gaming community and how much they enjoy torture since that's the only logical reason I can come up with to explain pewdiepie's popularity.

ancapailldorcha

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well you seem to be the odd one out when it comes to the gaming community and how much they enjoy torture since that's the only logical reason I can come up with to explain pewdiepie's popularity.

According to Wikipedia, he's got the most subscribed channel on Youtube. Urgh.

Duggy747

Mindboggling how popular he is. He knows how to lure people into his videos anyways with his OTT photoshopped expressions on the thumbnails of videos. Whenever I'm looking at Oculus videos I always see his stupid expressions on the side of the page.

Taylor365

Duggy747 wrote: »

Whenever I'm looking at Oculus videos I always see his stupid expressions on the side of the page.

I've seen his stupid face on the sidebar.

Yet to watch any of his vids though. Anyone who says 'pew', goes into the 'swag/yolo' category for me.


:mad:

Grumpypants

COYVB wrote: »

that's absolutely nothing like the case in point. a more accurate thing to say would be, would TB close this thread because it mentions him and is generating traffic for boards

True it was a wild comparison it would be closer to say something like if I took his video (that he owns and created) and downloaded it from Youtube.

Then added a voice over of me saying why I thought it was crap and uploaded it back onto youtube and made tons of money for myself.

Retr0gamer

Grumpypants wrote: »

True it was a wild comparison it would be closer to say something like if I took his video (that he owns and created) and downloaded it from Youtube.

Then added a voice over of me saying why I thought it was crap and uploaded it back onto youtube and made tons of money for myself.

If you didn't take the whole thing wholesale and it was an actual critical review then you would be well within your rights. Except in Ireland and the UK where you'd probably be liable for libel but that's another kettle of fish.

Lyrical

I agree with what TB said and that the developer was in the wrong.However I thought watching his video about what way the developer funded the game had nothing to do with his main point,it kind of seemed unprofessional and petty imo.

There was nothing to gain from that part of the video and it kinda made sense why they would try and silence any criticism of the game if they had x amount invested in the game not that it's right what they did.Bit late for the developer to do a U-Turn after the metacritic reviews mind you.

crybaby

Since when did critics' reviews become "attacking someone's revenue stream"

How sad

Retr0gamer

crybaby wrote: »

Since when did critics' reviews become "attacking someone's revenue stream"

How sad

True, making a **** game is pretty much self inflicted.

super_furry

I think everyone in this situation just comes out looking bad. Total Biscuit is a total pain in the arse at the best of times but throwing himself up on a cross like some poor martyr is just daft. Wildgames just look like the amateurs they are.

briany

crybaby wrote: »

Since when did critics' reviews become "attacking someone's revenue stream"

How sad

I think it's always been that way to an extent. It's just that in the past it was easier to influence the opinions of an influential publication through different methods of financial coercion. Now it's easier just to get items pulled by putting in a dodgy copyright claim. Same basic goal being to quell the level of stink that should be around their lousy product. Sadly for them, happily for us, with the Internet it's pretty easy to find out about the quality of just about any game if you're bothered to do a bit of research. You can't really stop the bad public opinion spreading by censoring a YT channel or paying off a gaming site/magazine/TV show anymore.

ShadowHearth

super_furry wrote: »

I think everyone in this situation just comes out looking bad. Total Biscuit is a total pain in the arse at the best of times but throwing himself up on a cross like some poor martyr is just daft. Wildgames just look like the amateurs they are.

He is not throwing himself on a cross at all. He actually did mentioned that this thing does feck all damage to him, because he is backed up by big network. He said that the ones who get the most abuse are smaller youtubers who cannot fight back.
Just because you dont like the man, it does not mean that he is doing something wrong. He does not come looking bad in this at all, He is the one fighting for freedom ffs.

nesf

Lyrical wrote: »

I agree with what TB said and that the developer was in the wrong.However I thought watching his video about what way the developer funded the game had nothing to do with his main point,it kind of seemed unprofessional and petty imo.

There was nothing to gain from that part of the video and it kinda made sense why they would try and silence any criticism of the game if they had x amount invested in the game not that it's right what they did.Bit late for the developer to do a U-Turn after the metacritic reviews mind you.

You don't have any right to silence criticism if it's truthful. Regardless of how it affects your revenue stream. Doing so is both unlawful and plays poorly in the press and public mind.

Using copyright strikes to do it is, eh, very dense and highlights how these guys had no idea what they're doing.

Lyrical

nesf wrote: »

You don't have any right to silence criticism if it's truthful. Regardless of how it affects your revenue stream. Doing so is both unlawful and plays poorly in the press and public mind.

Using copyright strikes to do it is, eh, very dense and highlights how these guys had no idea what they're doing.

Sorry I probably didn't explain my point well and I thought after I posted it,it might come across as ambiguous.What you said is right and I agree with you.I was just trying to say that I didn't see the need for TB to include in the video the funding for their kickstarter etc it was kind of needless and made him come across as petty imo.As the vast majority were going to agree with his point on censorship.

I don't agree what the devs did and it's wrong but it seemed like a panic decision on their part as shown in the video they were adding funds for their own game one kickstarter. So they're probably people in debt not that that's any excuse,but I could see some logic behind it however flawed from their point of view from everyone elses it's a PR disaster. They're going to sorely regret the decision to try and censor him.I remember TB did a scathing review for The War Z or as it's commonly known as Infestation Survivor Series and it didn't do it much harm in the steam sales :pac:.

Grumpypants

ShadowHearth wrote: »

He is not throwing himself on a cross at all. He actually did mentioned that this thing does feck all damage to him, because he is backed up by big network. He said that the ones who get the most abuse are smaller youtubers who cannot fight back.
Just because you dont like the man, it does not mean that he is doing something wrong. He does not come looking bad in this at all, He is the one fighting for freedom ffs.

He's not ****ing Braveheart

ShadowHearth

Grumpypants wrote: »

He's not ****ing Braveheart

He is not ****ing Jesus Crist too