I’ll defend reality with the law. You defend your incorrect perception of the situation with your money. Which do YOU think is most effective?

“Free advertising” has nothing to do with the situation. The company involved has EVERY right to determine who advertises their product and how it’s being advertised. Those…

Flawed? It’s hardly “flawed”. If you knew anything about the subject, that would be plain to see.

They’re not doing anything to people. They’re protecting their rights from infringement by others.

People constantly complain that their “rights” are being violated...yet will defend their violation of others’ legal rights vociferously.

I’ve yet to see a streamer successfully fight a takedown action. :D

Of course I’m serious. As an attorney who has more than a passing interest in copyright law, the constant infringement of copyright by the ignorant masses perturbs me greatly.

Fair Use has a specific definition, and test, that most streaming fails. Most internet users have no clue about copyright or fair use - they just throw the terms around haphazardly. It would behoove them to learn a bit about the subject before speaking on it.

Good for SquareEnix. Streaming is not a right - it’s a derivative work and covered under copyright. The publisher has every right to control what is streamed and how it’s done. I’m glad to see companies finally fighting back against the constant infringement of copyright on the internet.

Interestingly, I’m sick and tired of people on the internet not understanding how copyright works.

Manny Pacquiao fought himself?!

Did it look like this?

It’s not up to the consumer to determine the advertising campaign for a product. It doesn’t matter if it’s “free advertising” or not - what these “YouTubers” are doing is infringing on the legal rights of others. I would venture to guess that if other people were infringing on any of their rights as granted by the…

Almost all Fair Use falls into these categories: Commentary/Criticism, News Reporting, Research/Scholarship, Non-profit Educational Use, and Parody. The work in question doesn’t fit any of those categories. It’s pretty obvious that Fair Use is not a viable defense if you’re knowledgeable about the law. The reason I…

You don’t have any valid points; you’ve just evinced a lack of knowledge about copyright law. You’re using untenable positions in a desperate attempt to argue copyright law with a licensed attorney.

Recording the video game being played and distributing it to people via YouTube is a public performance of the audio visual work copyrighted by Nintendo.

The video is both a derivative work (the copyright holder gets the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to make a derivative work based upon their copyrighted work) and a public…

The free advertising line doesn’t really work when it’s a prima facie violation of copyright law. If the copyright holder doesn’t want it distributed, they’ll get it removed.

What should be done are civil suits against the infringing parties. A few high-priced judgments against the most egregious violators should wake…

Check out this link: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scop…

Especially this section:

“ The application of the public performance right to software has not be fully developed, except that it is clear that a publicly available video game is controlled by this right.”

It really shouldn’t exist under copyright law. Too many publishers are lax regarding protecting their rights and allowing the hoi polloi to violate them constantly.

Actually, it’s more an indication that people are woefully ignorant of copyright laws. Whether or not the game is available for purchase is immaterial - the copyrights are still in force.

Yes, they did exist - the last major revision (apart from the DMCA) was the Copyright Act of 1976.

Backing up games you own is most likely legal...but public performance of an audio visual work is a violation of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.

Public Performance does NOT only apply to music. It applies to the following types of works:

It is a copyright violation. It's a derivative work and/or a public performance of a copyrighted work.