legal? or was it just the major sites playing ball because they like to stay on publisher's good sides
games
Jump to date
Friday, December 4, 2020
I don't know how courts will rule on Lets' Plays, when they eventually hear a case on them
I like the uh, release times for the game they posted
PC gets it first
I will be interested how courts rule regardless. Because for certain "games" (interactive movies) would a silent playthrough be protected?
I say yes, but I think so much of current legal rights are tied up in fair use, and whether something is "transformative" whatever the hell that means
I mean, if we take the sargon case as an example of case law, didn't the judge rule that the act of putting the content he clipped on his channel alone was transformation
because it puts it in a different context being on his channel
I think a lot of things are transformative just by the nature of them existing
Also in Ga*mer news https://twitter.com/Kotaku/status/1335026866466353152
Twitch Removes 'Blind Playthrough' Tag After Disability Criticism https://t.co/PUFGwuF2P0
I can't believe you are watching volorant max
as someone who is blind in one eye i can safely say the term 'blind' has never offended me
it's impossible to not offend people
i'm pretty sure atm devs are free to control however their stuff is broadcasted/performed
well they could be half-blind people like me who can still see in one eye
no if you're half-blind you can selectively identify as either able or blind depending on which is optimal for a given context
any caselaw I have seen out of the US (which admittedly is limited) leans towards letsplays being transformative
hell, I'd say it leans towards silent gameplay videos being transformative
what companies do and what they should legally be allowed to do are not the same
nintendo has all the cards
there is not a single game company that could replace nintendo
it has its niche covered
microsoft and sony are interchangable
but for games i thought it was, atm legally, that technically all broadcasts without a license/permission are illegal and just "permitted"
or is that not correct
There is no law that says that as far as I know
probably shit like that in eula's though
eula's tend to have unenforceable shit
they throw whatever the fuck they want in there in the off chance it works
it would be pretty big if someone went to court over streaming/videos and won
but wouldn't it also be pretty bad if they did that and lost?
Again, I mentioned it earlier, sargon did go to court over this
not gaming though
he was sued because he uploaded a video that contained 2 clips from some black womans coverage of some protest
without comentary
judge ruled in favor of it being transformative
if that passes for transformative, I 100% believe an interactive experience would pass
copyright shit's a pain in the ass
it is and it should be done away with
the worst is when people defend it from the perspective of money-algorithms even though they're actually people
like sure there are reasons why it's "needed" but why should you care as just some random guy
I could maybe understand the limited 5 years after creation copyright that it originally was
this 100 years past death of creator thing is retarded
yeah
yeah it goes against the whole foundation of how art and creation actually works
disney literally needs to be forced to put mickey in the public domain
for the good of society
would be the day
maybe if every person on the planet publishes mickey mouse gore porn on the same day
they'll have no way to answer
disney, google, basically every major company
if you own more then 0.1% of things in existence, you need to sell some of it off
