To the point where some video creators will deliberately use footage claimed by two different national divisions of Nintendo in hopes both will claim to be the legitimate owner, at which point Youtube gives nobody the money and only Google wins.
-
-
-
Replying to @NMamatas @iridienne and
Using trademark to silence critics is fucky too though anyway. ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @simonm223 @NMamatas and
And DCMA remains the principal mechanism of corporate action.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @simonm223 @iridienne and
And yet, my seven-year-old manages to watch a zillion hours of video game play critiques and run-throughs on YouTube anyhow, and a bunch of floating heads who say things like "Whoa, this is EPIC!!!" are now millionaires.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @NMamatas @simonm223 and
The annoying thing here is that copyright law is in an extreme state of flux, enforcement is highly selective, so people talk past each other all the time about this The stronger argument in my view is that existing case law says streaming is copyright infringement, full stop
1 reply 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NMamatas and
It seems incredibly obvious that streaming a video game is a "public performance" of the content of that game -- it's somewhere between screening a movie/playing an album and producing/filming a script (It can't possibly be a MORE transformative work than filming a screenplay)
4 replies 3 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NMamatas and
I think the issue is that the content owners are largely well aware of Twitch etc., and seem to treat it sort of like the RIAA treats bands where covers are performed - they're getting some sort of cut, so they allow it
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @NMamatas and
Okay but cover bands weren't just a matter of selective enforcement and "norms" They created a specific mechanism -- a "mechanical license" -- to allow cover bands to exist without being buried in paperwork It's an aboveboard, legal process
4 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl and
Without getting into the weeds, most published musicians sign up with an agency that collects royalties on their behalf, and when you cover a song as part of a commercial performance/release you just pay the agency a fixed percentage of your profits
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes
No such mechanical licensing system was created for video game content before streaming got off the ground What we have instead is an ad hoc system enforced by different publishers for their own work, via commercial partnership with the hosting site
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl and
For the individual streamer this isn't that big a deal -- most people who cover songs also go through a middleman like YouTube anyway so it's the same basic thing But it does strongly reinforce the monopolies of sites like YouTube and Twitch
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl and
AND it starts running into problems when you start stepping on the copyright of creators who don't actually work for a big games publisher and never agreed to this deal Hence the blowup over games with licensed recorded music in their soundtracks
0 replies 2 retweets 6 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.