|
See now I'm torn between not caring about TB's whiny problems about TOO MUCH CRITICISM and caring about striking back against "the man". "Trust me, FUN Creator is bigger than a couple of videos" strikes me as arrogant as hell.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
Roar posted:See now I'm torn between not caring about TB's whiny problems about TOO MUCH CRITICISM and caring about striking back against "the man". See, I'll say one thing I talked about on Retsutalk. Forget him for a sec. Like him, specifically. FUN Creations make a game, it gets panned by a reviewer, and their recourse is to use the copyright system to take down the review? And they're not the first to do that? This also happened to Kamoc (goon/LPer here), too. He and two others streamed a dumb Slenderman rip-off horror game, made fun of it, and again the game designer's recourse is a copyright strike. So this takes the video down entirely, and keeps Kamoc from uploading videos beyond 15 minutes, custom thumbnails, etc. Other LPs of the game get to stay up - and insult to injury, the designer uses scarecam footage to promote the sequel to the game, so I guess it's okay for the game designer to use footage, but not other people? I get the whole "it's just a YouTube account, who cares" thing, but the copyright system is supposed to keep me from, say, ripping a movie off of Netflix and making money on someone else's work. It's not for me to cherry pick what reviews make my product look good, and forcibly shut down dissenting opinions. This isn't just a video game thing either - if I want to tell people I had a bad experience with any product and show them, but the company decides to keep positive things and eliminate negative by claiming copyright, and YouTube just believes them by default, that is weird, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Yeah, youtube is just plain broken in this regard. This also isnt the first time this happened to TB specifically. Also slowbeef keep up the good work with Dark Souls, are you going to continue playing on PS3? PS upgrading weapons restores their durability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:I don't really get how somebody can have such an ego and be so insecure at the same time. Couldn't the two be easily related? Feel insecure so you put forward a grandiose persona. Personally, I do think he can be a dick sometimes... but I'm a dick sometimes as well. Not sure I'm really in a position to judge. VivaVizer fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
slowbeef posted:See, I'll say one thing I talked about on Retsutalk. Forget him for a sec. Like him, specifically. That's beyond weird, in America it's straight up unconstitutional. Most people expect violations of First Amendment rights to be political in nature but if the courts say that a copyright claim can be made on these videos, that's literally the government saying you're not allowed to say mean things about corporate interests. VivaVizer posted:Couldn't the two be easily related? Feel insecure so you put forward a grandiose persona. Narcissistic Personality Disorder usually presents as a gigantic, self-obsessed ego that can be punctured by the slightest challenge; whereupon they fly into something called a "narcissistic rage", which I think involves vindicating your ego by violently cowing the person who dared slight you. Don't take that as me diagnosing TB though, I'm not even 100% certain I'm right. Dr. Buttass fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
FutureFriend posted:TotalBiscuit also used to post on the forums and he made one of the funniest posts I've seen on here: poo poo, thank you! I knew that was from somewhere around here, but had completely forgotten the thread! I'll say it once again...poo poo man, rise above it. BMS posted:Seriously though, he should thank his lucky stars he's in Europe, I mean, I highly doubt that if he were an American LPer going to the Doctor for Comment Injury, that that poo poo would be covered under Obamacare. Ablative posted:...TB lives in North Carolina. Welp, guess he's hosed then. Unless of course the President ever gets into making LPs, then perhaps he'll decide to try and convince Congress to add "Internet Insurance" to the healthcare law. "ARE YOU DEPRESSED BECAUSE YOU TAKE THE INTERNET WAAAAY TOO SERIOUSLY? gently caress it, your meds are now covered dawg!" Also while I'm at it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2634792&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post333762771 I'm assuming that this statement of his....has changed? BMS fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Dr. Buttass posted:That's beyond weird, in America it's straight up unconstitutional. Most people expect violations of First Amendment rights to be political in nature but if the courts say that a copyright claim can be made on these videos, that's literally the government saying you're not allowed to say mean things about corporate interests. Nope. If they make a false DMCA filing it's a crime, but a private company (the insulted party) telling another private company (youtube) "hey, take this video down because... reasons" it's perfectly legal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
BMS posted:Also while I'm at it: That was almost 7 years ago. He's gotten more popular between now and then, and when you're inundated by poo poo like this, RareAcumen posted:The best example of this would be the guy who made Flappy Bird taking the game down because it got too popular and attracted gamer attention. Which means demands from fans and hate mail from detractors. Also, angry gamer bile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
Dr. Buttass posted:That's beyond weird, in America it's straight up unconstitutional. Most people expect violations of First Amendment rights to be political in nature but if the courts say that a copyright claim can be made on these videos, that's literally the government saying you're not allowed to say mean things about corporate interests. It's not the courts - as far as I know, no Youtube copyright claim has ever made it all the way to a court, and I'd be rather confident making the less general statement that no copyright claim on a Let's Play video has gone all the way to a court, because if it had, someone would have brought it up here. It would be a vital legal precedent for every VLP in the country. I'd like to see it happen, but I wouldn't wish it on any LPer I know (except PewDiePie - not for any personal reasons, but because he can probably afford a good defense and would bring the matter to Youtube's attention). It may well be that Youtube's system is unconstitutional and would be torn down in court if legally challenged, but the court's authority only extends to matters brought before it - if nobody ever files a lawsuit about the system, it will remain until Google decides to change it, which they won't. Remember, it favors copyright holders because they pay a lot of money to secure their income. Even the most popular content producers are just ad revenue. If PewDiePie, Smosh, iJustine, and all the other big names in Youtube all threatened to pack up and leave, then maybe things would change, but they've got their huge subscriber bases and no other place to go where they can make the kind of money they do on Youtube. Enough money flows both ways that nobody has to change anything. And nobody has yet felt strongly enough that they were in the right on a copyright strike to take it to court - as far as I know, someone always backs down in the end. Even if some LPer wanted to challenge a strike in court, it's incredibly expensive and the copyright holder would likely sandbag the process until the individual ran out of money and win by default. (Expect to see a crowdsourced funding effort within the next few years for this very issue, though.) When the copyright strike hits someone who could afford to fight it, the holders back down pretty quickly - this Totalbiscuit thing isn't likely to go to court either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:Nope. If they make a false DMCA filing it's a crime, but a private company (the insulted party) telling another private company (youtube) "hey, take this video down because... reasons" it's perfectly legal. Has it never gone before the courts? My bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Would make no difference in court. Youtube can remove any video or any channel that it wants. It is their service. There is no legal issue here at all. It isn't like they are removing videos made by black people or something. However, they have to have some semblance of fairness otherwise content makers will abandoned them... probably... if there was a viable alternative... which there isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
VivaVizer posted:Would make no difference in court. Youtube can remove any video or any channel that it wants. It is their service. There is no legal issue here at all. That, too, is for a court to decide. It's possible to file a lawsuit against any legal entity for any reason - it's just rather expensive to do, and the court will throw it out if there's not at least a potentially valid legal claim in it. Youtube doesn't choose to remove the video - it provides a means whereby a copyright holder can issue the legal statement that a video hosted on Youtube infringes their copyright, and Youtube's automatic mechanisms block the content from public view. There are plenty of contexts where making such a statement can be illegal, and I've read about some lawsuits that covered very similar situations - generally things like people suing bloggers or commenters for statements that they claimed were false. The only time I've read about the court siding with the plaintiff was one moron who insisted on representing himself and stood firm on a defense that consisted entirely of avoiding service instead of appealing to legal defenses such as, say, the First Amendment. I don't know how things look from the copyright holder's side, but there's a point in the dispute process where Youtube requires the video uploader to certify a legal statement that can then be challenged in court by the copyright holder if they choose to go that far. It must work the same way in the other direction. I don't know the DMCA, general copyright law, or any libel laws that may cover such statements, but if there's a company out there making false representations that prevent a U.S. citizen from exercising otherwise available freedoms, then I'm sure a lawyer would be able to write up a lawsuit filing and get it in front of a judge. Granted, Youtube could close the user's account entirely at any point in this process and isn't compelled to grant any user access to their service, but as long as social media exists, that user's story will spread far and wide, and I don't think even Google will want that kind of publicity. We're lucky to live in a country where there are people who will crusade for freedoms that are challenged by minorities like corporations, and where companies at least have to pretend to care about their users.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Okay, let me put an end to this lawsuit talk as a person who has extensively studied law (Taking the Bar in a few months). I am not too familiar with Intellectual Property Law, but, unless there is a specific statute regarding this being a source of litigation, you likely need to have a tort. Now, torts require a wrongful act against a duty that they held, or an absence of action when there is a duty to act. The issue here is that the wrongful act is likely to be found not to exist. Establishing a duty on Youtubes part to keep videos up is tough as well. Add in the fact that, as part of their contract, I am sure Youtube contributers sign off on Youtube using their discretion to display videos, so unless the discretion is unreasonable, that one is hard to get out of as well. Also, there is the fact that you need to show actual or reasonably likely damages, something that an average youtuber does not actually have. There is no damage if they pull down my video, so, you need someone who makes revenue off of videos, and, even then, the damages need to be reasonably predictable and there simply is no predicting how much someone will make off of a particular video. Add in the fact that most cases, I believe about 90% when I last checked, do not even make it to jury selection, and less than that make it to verdict, and the process will take years if the judge doesn't decide to put you low on the docket and have a full calendar when you turn down the settlement that is probably pretty reasonable and generous. In short, there is no case on the issue, and likely will never be one, unless a Youtuber decides to waste time and money to convince a judge or a jury that they might have lost a couple of hundred dollars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
@Nidoking My point is the First Amendment doesn't apply to Youtube at all. First Amendment only stops the government from making laws or actions that infringes on your freedom of speech (and a few other freedoms). It doesn't apply to any privately owned platform or property. I can no more claim First Amendment rights to scream about military drones on your front yard than I can claim First Amendment rights for anything that is posted on the internet or Youtube. Maybe on a government website though. In fact, if Youtube decided tomorrow to make a system that randomly deleted a video every minute, then they are completely within their right to assuming that gels with their ToS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
VivaVizer posted:@Nidoking You would be correct if YouTube itself decided to take your video down - for example due to nudity. If they remove it based on a copyright claim from a third party though you can use Free Speech and Fair Use as arguments depending on the content type and pattern of takedowns. For instance, there's a big difference between "FUN Creators" being able to say "take down all videos containing Guise Of The Wolf gameplay", or just targeting one specific negative review (in this case TotalBiscuit). It's an issue of free speech issue when you're trying to quash negative publicity. Of course due to Fair Use they probably can't legally take down any actual reviews, but Let's Plays are most likely easy targets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
I don't think that's true though. Fair Use protects you if the copyright holder sues you for copyright infringement in court which isn't happening in this case. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private businesses or properties. You can no more use freedom of speech on Youtube than you can use freedom of religion in a Catholic private school. There really are no laws that apply to this situation. I think Brassherald is right in that tort is really the only option at the moment. Maybe if enough people sue Youtube for civil damages, then they'll change their claims system but that's about it. vvvvvvvvv: I think you could get them on fraud for that if they filed a DMCA but they didn't. All they are really doing is lying to Youtube which isn't against the law directly. It might be against Youtube ToS or some legal contract that they had to do with Youtube to use the copyright claims system but that's a black box that I have no insight into. VivaVizer fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
If nothing else, there's fraud in the company's false representation of the video infringing their copyright. Depending on whether the video is completely blocked or just has its monetization disabled, there are actual damages to be proven there, and while I'm not a lawyer and never will be because the intricacies of law are probably more than I can handle, I'm sure the burden of showing damages due to fraud is considerably lower than the burden for damages due to any copyright claims - if nothing else, there have almost definitely been fraud cases in actual courts to set precedents, so your lawyer can pull up a successful case and find out exactly what needs to be shown. EDIT: There's also a pre-emptive injunction you could sue for - basically, a declaration that the content is not an infringement of copyright. This is well outside my limited knowledge of the law, but it DOES cover First Amendment issues like this and is a way for the would-be defendant to force the issue so they can be on the plaintiff's side of the suit. The copyright claim on Youtube would certainly be enough to show a judge that there is a legal standing for such an injunction, which would bar the copyright holder from claiming copyright - and in this case, would probably include a court order to Youtube to permit the video on their service and to reject any claims by the copyright holder on that content. It would probably take forever to get that one on the docket, though. EDIT 2: Like I said before, I'm pretty sure that there IS an official DMCA issued at some point in the process before it gets to the stage where Youtube throws up its figurative hands and says "Take it to court, fellas, this isn't our business anymore." Nidoking fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
If you read the Youtube terms of service, a false copyright claim is supposedly perjury. That being said perjury is almost impossible to prove, especially on the internet. You'd need to prove that they in fact made the statement and they knew it was not true beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal and a preponderance of the evidence in civil suits. Either way, defense is going to be no proof that it was me at that IP address and not someone else using the same IP, or something like that. Perjury is hard enough when we had Roger Clemens lying in court in front of everyone. Also, as to injunction, a Temporary Restraining Order(TRO) CAN be awarded on a hearing when Motions to Show Cause are presented. (The other three types of injunctions are related mostly to real property, so, not going into them since I mostly do criminal law, anyway). There is, of course, a standard to reach to get a TRO enacted by the court. In NY, and I believe also Federal Court, you need to show 3 things. The likelihood of success of a suit. That the balance of equities is in your favor. Irreparable harm is done by not giving the TRO. In the case of Youtube, you are going to have a hell of a time explaining the irreparable harm of pulling down a Youtube video until the case is decided. But, you could possibly find a judge who would give the TRO. Keep in mind that monetary damages that could replace the income is not irreparable harm. I doubt you could win a TRO to keep the videos up during your years of litigation process. Brassherald fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
If I remember correctly once the YouTube dispute hits the real DMCA stage (I don't know how many steps it takes now - used to be a lot more straightforward), they put the video back online and only take it down if you lose the legal dispute. fake edit: Yeah I found it in the YouTube FAQ: quote:I notified YouTube of a video that infringed my copyright and it was removed. Why did I receive an email saying it may be reinstated to the site? unfair fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
So... I'm not sure if this counts as a Let's Play... But it does involve a lot of viewers playing a single game... at the same time. http://www.twitch.tv/twitchplayspokemon Basically, someone set up a bot to look at the Twitch chat and parse commands from it into the emulator. It is kind of hilariously watching a bunch of people trying to get something done in spite of trolls and oddly satisfying when they pull it off. They spent like 6 hours at this area with a bunch of ledges that screw you over if you walk down (I didn't watch all of that) and are currently in a dark cave with no Pokemon that knows Flash. Not that Flash would make a difference. Also, they have a Charmeleon that only knows Bide, Cut, Leer, and Growl and an under-leveled Rattata that knows Thunderbolt (what the deuce) and Dig. I'm totally shocked that they've managed to beat three gym leaders doing this. Especially the Lt. Surge gym puzzle. I don't know what the hell is going to happen in the Safari Zone. There is no way that they'll manage to get Surf in 500 steps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
VivaVizer posted:So... I'm not sure if this counts as a Let's Play... This is pure genius! 28k viewers! I bet we are going to see tons more of these. I want to see tens of thousands play some Final Fantasy games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Thread in Games about Twitchplayspokemon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
error supply posted:This is pure genius! 28k viewers! I bet we are going to see tons more of these. I want to see tens of thousands play some Final Fantasy games. No you don't, this kind of thing works for pokemon because it's not a very hard game and it's very very forgiving when you wipe out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Personally, I'd be interested in seeing two channels fight each other in some fighting game. Would need infinite round time though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
FutureFriend posted:TotalBiscuit also used to post on the forums He also used to post in this very thread. though it was way the hell back in October. I think he's had other things on his mind of late.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
error supply posted:This is pure genius! 28k viewers! I bet we are going to see tons more of these. I want to see tens of thousands play some Final Fantasy games. I also saw where there's a second stream that does the same thing with Tetris... Using the inputs from the chat from the Pokemon stream. What hath science wrought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I just tuned in for a few minutes and they actually went through a trainer battle with relative ease. In one brief moment it went from a funny experiment to something kinda incredible. I'm also taken aback by the fact that not a single person hit the B Button while Pidgetto was evolving.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Mr DJB posted:I'm also taken aback by the fact that not a single person hit the B Button while Pidgetto was evolving. The twitch chat server clearly can't handle all the messages, notice how it occasionally just stops posting messages before posting a ton at once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
The last ten minutes have been the most frustrating thing I've seen in a long time. I'm pretty sure they're trying to cut a plant but they've gotten nowhere close to it. They also tried to teach Teleport to Pidgeot. I can sort of see the appeal to watch this but oh my GOD it's so frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Roar posted:The last ten minutes have been the most frustrating thing I've seen in a long time. I'm pretty sure they're trying to cut a plant but they've gotten nowhere close to it. I just log in every once and a while to see how far they've gotten; I don't think there's anyway to make it compelling long term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Yeah, I just take the madness in small doses. Long term exposure would be boring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Why is saving the the most common thing that seems to happen when they press start? It happens like 90% of the time
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
I think it's an interesting idea but I wouldn't watch it. I'm interested in seeing how much progress they make but the most interesting thing about it is how it works. I know they use an irc bot to get commands from the chat but how does it interface with the emulator?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
unpronounceable posted:I know they use an irc bot to get commands from the chat but how does it interface with the emulator? The easiest way would be to just create the keystrokes in the program using sendkeys() or whatever the equivalent is for the programming language he used. The Heavenator fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Feb 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
The Heavenator posted:The easiest way would be to just create the keystrokes in the program using sendkeys() or whatever the equivalent is for the programming language he used. I tried exactly that but SendKeys() doesn't generate input visible to DirectInput, which is what most emulators and games use, unfortunately. e: Got it working, the answer is to use SendInput() with KEYEVENTF_SCANCODE and these codes in the input structure's wScan. See here and adapt. My script is ugly as hell at the moment, might clean and post it. Admiral H. Curtiss fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Could be a Lua script or something. A lot of emulators have Lua scripting these days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Does VBA have Lua? I thought it didn't and the state saved message that popped up once looked just like VBA's, but I guess it coulda been added in at some point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
VBA-RR does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
nevermind, already coverd
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
If you look at the Twitch numbers, Twitch Plays Pokemon has almost exclusively brought Pokemon Red/Blue to the number 2 played game behind League of Legends. Interesting idea, and seems to be successful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 05:13
|
|