Microsoft's New YouTube Policy - A Step Backwards

[binary solo]

fireburn95 said:

binary solo said:

Perhaps because youtube videos and the like are actually more like advertising for which MS (and Nintendo) don't have to pay a dime. So the question is why can't youtubers, who put is a decent amount of effort to make their videos, be given a reasonable amount of license and make a buck from these games since they are advertising the games for the publishers and platform holders?

 

 

We're dealing with too many variables here. It's not always advertising, sometimes it satisfies a persons want, they watch the story, they never buy the game.

And even if it is advertising, so what, it's still their game which they made, they coded from the ground up, they own the ip, they made all of the art assets and they paid for a team of 40 composers to create original music.
The kind of work that goes into a game is nowhere near the kind of work that goes into a commentary video of gameplay. Hell, you can do it for absolutely free with shareFactory and a ps camera.

Every business has a level of job security, unfortunately for commentators there's is very low, because the video footage features content that they do not own. Microsoft make something, they want their money for it, and deserve it too.

Irrelevant. Just because you have the legal right to do something or demand something, doesn't mean it's always in your best interests. And if something is not in your best interests and you do it anyeway that's your business unless it is causing harm to someone else. Then it becomes morally and ethically questionable. In all likelihood the net effect of LPs and similar videos is financially positive for publishers because the sales that are generated from views are greater than the sales lost from people deciding they got everything they wanted from passively watching a full LP playthrough. If it is assumed that sales are positively affected by Youtubers then your argument holds no water. The rights holder IS getting their money for it.

You know when corporations sue each other for patent and copyright violations the courts normally throw the cases out if the plaintiff can't actually demonstrate harm. In this case it's likely the corporations are in fact benefitting from what youtubers and streamers are doing. Imagine a publisher taking a youtuber to court, and the youtuber being able, though some sort of (hypothetically possible) complex analysis to demonstrate that the net effect to the publisher was a $1000 increase in game sales revenue? The judge would tell the publisher to GTFO of their court and stop wasting the court's time.

It's a slightly different story if a youtuber is trashing a game. People who want to tell the world a game is a PoS have to be very careful how they use any copyright or trademark material because it is a fairly simple thing to be able to claim that the rights holder suffered harm from the unauthorised use of their IP for the purposes of turning people away from the game. Of course rights holders have to be careful of throwing stones because  there is an entire industry (reviewers) built around critiquing games, and publishers give reviewers reasonable license to use game content in reviews without demanding editorial control over a review. The calculus being they take the rough with the smooth and in general having reviewers is better for sales than not having reviewers.

Reviewers make their money from other people's IP just like Youtubers. Do game publishers demand a cut of the ad or subscription revenue reviewers make from reviewing games? 

And yes, you can create and post videos very simply and cheaply. But you won;t become a successful Youtuber and be able to give up your day job if you just post videos of you playing a game. Youtubers who gain millions of subscribers are not lazy arses who are totally living off the hard work of others.