Well I dont agree with that (along with pretty much the majority of the YouTube Community) and I'm pretty sure it does matter when it comes to the fact whether you are making $$$$ or not: http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=138161

From that, it all leads to monetization issue which seems to be the main reason why companies like MS are trying to bypass the "Fair Use" argument. There's tons of content from big YouTubers who have thousands of subscribers and have millions of views who dont make money AT ALL such as this guy (4000+ videos): http://www.youtube.com/user/cubex55

If you want to punish people, punish groups like Machinima, TheGameStation, IGN, GameSpot and Full Screen for paying those people uploading those videos through their channels.

I still think it should be allowed as long as the uploader isnt making any money, it pretty much is free advertisement for them. Honestly the only companies (from what I know so far) that seem to have a problem with people uploading any videos at all are mostly the western companies:

-EA
-Microsoft
-Sony's Western companies (i.e. Santa Monica)
-Rockstar
-Ubisoft
-Atari

Valve doesnt care either way (their actually promoting people to make videos through one of their programs), Bethseda doesnt care (as long as you dont monetize your videos), and pretty much 90% of the Japanese companies dont care (mostly depending on the content - i.e. recent games like FFXIII and RE5/6 arent allowed they get flagged).

But it's not exactly the full content, is it? You can argue that the output of the game is the result of user generated input, so it's always a dynamic result, unlike a movie which is static.

It's like saying Adobe owns the rights to all movies edited in Adobe Premier.

No. That is a bad analogy and is nothing like what we are talking about.

Everything from the artwork, music, voice work, coding, etc., is all copyright material. The fact that playing a game is dynamic has apsolutly no effect on the onwership rights of all that content.

If Valve is happy to see people use their stuff to make money, that's their right. If Sony doesn't want people making money off their stuff, that's their right. If you create something it is automaticly copyrighted and you have full ownership on how you want to distribute it.

Fair use only applies to reviews and education

Nope.

and you can only use a small sample.

Nope.

What are the laws on co-authoring?

Face it, an LP movie wouldn't be an LP movie without the contributing art from the player in the form of control input. The fact that a giant calculating program happens to flash images on the screen does not make a difference. It's like a collage of magazine cutouts. The player is the one that determines, via their input, where each is situated.

Go and read the US fair use law again, there is no prescribed limit on the kind of use nor the length of what is used. Sure, those things make it easier to claim fair use, but works have been taken and shown in full and then declared fair use based on context.

This is from the US Copyright Office:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"

Playing an entire game while talking is not a legit fair use.

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”"

You can't use the whole thing. Only a small portion and you have to have a damn good reason for it. The reason can't be, "I to talk on youtube."

IMHO if you just watch I dunno E3 and then put the video of Halo online why would you earn some money here? You neither produced the video you uploaded nor did you...  well you did nothing at all LOL

So its okay to remove this as a source of income for those lazy people.

But when you put alot of work into a lets say 15 minute review or 50 hours of lets play I think it should be okay to earn some money with it.

To be honest I still dont get why people need to make money with youtube   and I also think its stupid to have a 1 minute or just 15 second commercial when the video is just 3 minutes long etc. (thats why I block all ads on youtube etc) 

I mean why cant they just have a ton of logos on their wall wear Sony t-shirts or whatever while they film themselves? Why dont they have a ton of floating logos while I see the intro?

Why not a simple 2 second  "THIS VIDEO IS PRESENTED BY  WiiUstationbox 360"