Author Topic: You don't own that game you bought (copyright)  (Read 5480 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1666
Re: You don't own that game you bought (copyright)
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2014, 09:42:44 PM »
Interesting article (in Develop Magazine) on the whole YouTube Content ID issue from the laws point of view - a very important read if we're to have a fuller understanding of the basic problem faced due to legislation written when printers ruled the roost; it's actually quite complicated because any laxity on behalf of Copyright owners can be interpreted in a way that might undermine future claims, should they need to made.

Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 830
Re: You don't own that game you bought (copyright)
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2014, 10:06:25 PM »
i've recently been watching the content id vlogs by the youtuber darksydephil. who in the first week of this automated system being turned on for most of the multi channel networks, received about 500 content id claims.

some disabled the audio tracks in a few of his let's play videos, which is very frustrating if it's a story based game and his viewers miss out on not just his commentary but also key elements of the dialog and plot, but he's also had a few video blocked (as in won't play at all) in certain countries.

and other than nintendo's heavy handed claims of all let's play content featuring their games, the majority of the claims phil received were from music publishers, and not game devs or their publishers.

i'll have a read of that article you linked to after this post.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1666
Re: You don't own that game you bought (copyright)
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2014, 03:36:00 PM »
It gets better. EA dragged into YouTube paid coverage dispute (MCV). This is a pretty big deal for vloggers and just adds to the Content ID Claim mess because the system itself appears to be automated (via their API - it seems highly unlikely that a person is flagging content due to the number of claims made and the speed with which that is being done. Ed.). So whilst EA can make, what appear to YouTube and the proverbial vlogger at least, a 'valid' CID claim against a user and their content infringements automatically, it's effectively being done in error due to there being no verification checks against claimed content being paid-for-placement (no different than someone being paid to write a blog or comment).

For vloggers this means a few things that could ultimately result in account suspension for materials they are actually being paid to produce, or the all too real possibility of not having access to the means through which  disputes can be properly and effectively managed in timely fashion - it's in the claimants interests to drag their feet when claim is in dispute as it keeps the infringing content offline, this is why disputes can drag on for months all-the-whilst the vlogger is loosing views/subs/income etc. (it's important to know that within the realms of Copyright, having material disabled has more 'standing' than being compensated for tacitly allowing it - 'compensation' is not equivalent to 'licence'. Ed.).

Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 830
Re: You don't own that game you bought (copyright)
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2014, 05:02:21 PM »
@kat, do you think this content id mess, in general, will ever be cleared up?

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1666
Re: You don't own that game you bought (copyright)
« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2014, 07:50:43 PM »
In a word, no.

Corporations (or other entity's) that 'own' the rights to stuff need a way to enforce those rights without invoking either the law or the expense typically attributed to litigating a civil crime. That rights holders do not want to be doing this in any shape or form, is quintessential to the entire issue because they, rightly or wrongly, do not feel they should be obligated to foot the bill for taking perps to court when there are absolutely NO guaranties of success or, even worse for them, they receive no "just compensation" for expending all that effort - this is why SOPA, PIPA, PPP, TPP. ACTA, all seek to make copyright infringement a wholly Criminal matter because it would then invoke the State/Government (the 'crime' then being against all of us, the "State" or "Society", rather than between private individuals, real flesh and blood, or corporations [What's the difference?]).

As it stands right now, remedy to most issues of infringement that don't involve counterfeiting etc., is sought through DMCA, the notorious "Take Down Notice" mechanism; find an infringement; file a Notice; get immediate remedy (material taken down whilst DMCA is challenged). It puts the onus on the infringing party rather than claimant (that usually comes later in Court, if it gets that far).

The problem with this for rights holders though, it's legal.

What they want is a way to issue claims WITHOUT invoking infringement under Copyright (DMCA).

They want all the privileges attributed to owning a Copy Right absent the obligations, i.e. they want the profits minus being bound by the law.

This is why YouTube's Content ID system is such a win-win for YouTube and those using the system to make claims; invocations ("soft copyright claims" as was penned above) are absent any attributable obligations, or remedy should a claim be false (in error or knowingly) as would be the case under DMCA - burden of proof is on the person against whom a claim is made (the infringing party has to prove a negative rather than the Claimant proving for the positive).

This is all done whilst presenting the issue to the end-user under the guise of claims being infringements of Copyright when, in matter of fact,  they are "colour-of-law" interpretations of simplistic Terms of Service violations - at point of upload to YouTube the end-user must state whether or not they have full rights to the materials used; in saying "yes" the end-user is making a statement of fact to YouTube, meaning subsequent claims against said-same user and their content are actually confirmatory claims the user lied to YouTube about owning uploaded content. That is a Terms of Service violation not a copyright infringement claim (which would otherwise invoke DMCA).

It's critical to understand this because in the broader context and environment YouTube Et-al can do whatever it wants without there being a hint of a whisper, of the lowest morning mist, invoking Copyright law, or breaking it - it's all about service agreements, and managing usage and abuses therein. It's bloody genius when you think about it!.

The only way 'we' win is by stripping YouTube Et al. of their ability to profit from what we do whilst they don't really feel that obligated to reward us for that effort and their massive profits (obviously one doesn't condone doing anything that break the law as it stands). We need to find alternative ways to generate revenue that properly and fully reward those making content for others to enjoy whilst preventing or mitigating the abuse of power through leveraged size that typically allows Corporations like YouTube to 'abuse' (and one can argue it's an abuse) their "commons" position ("providing services for the public good" so to speak). That's said not from any anti-capitalist/corporatist point of view, but rather one of encouraging a more rewarding and pragmatic meritocracy.

The problem is, video in particular is an extraordinarily expensive medium through which profits and rewards can be had, more so these days because consumers have been desensitized to web based advertising (due to it's continued abuse by traffic hijackers etc.) and much of anything of any worth being available for free, as a content creator this leaves few options for monetised reward in a general, none-specific way.

Apologies for the long post again :)

Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 830
Re: You don't own that game you bought (copyright)
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2014, 08:47:44 PM »
thanks kat, i think i understand all that. it's definitely an interesting subject, that one way or another is going to affect a lot of people, so i personally would gladly hear any thoughts you have.

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1666
Re: You don't own that game you bought (copyright)
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2014, 10:38:47 PM »
Posted a blog which speaks to the points discussed above - "not approved for monetisation". Essentially the way the monetisation system works it appears, for all intents and purposes, that Google/YouTube are the ones doing the flagging rather than the Entity owning the copyright/licensing rights to the materials being questioned. No mention of such a party is ever made in any of the information provided, and to resolve the issue the accused is required to provide proof (or make a statement thereof) they own the appropriate Rights to commercially exploit the contents of a given video, rather than it being the accuser providing that information - it's critically important to note that even if one did show such 'proof' (or make an appropriate statement), on the Internet what does that mean? The Rights holder could just dismiss whatever legitimate documents one was in possession of, or deny any such permission/agreement had ever been made in the first place. It's immensely frustrating to deal with because it generally means the accused is having to prove a negative ("prove to me you did not do 'x'"), rather than the accuser proving a positive ("I have proof you did 'x'").

Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1666
Re: You don't own that game you bought (copyright)
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2014, 10:44:42 AM »
BBC is carrying an article about the soon to be activated Voluntary Copyright Alert Programme (Vcap). What's particularly interesting is the way Rights Holders want to use the system for, what amounts to, harassing users with indirect threats of legal action about unconfirmed and unsubstantiated violations of Copyright - it's not for service providers to act on Rights holder behalf, but for the Rights Holders to police and pursue protection of their own properties. Thankfully ISP's appear to have seen the potential can of worms this might open and are preferring a more 'educational' approach to warning users about infringements.


 


Facebook Comments