He tipped his hand by saying “We have...”. You know there’s not going to be any logic behind his alleged points when he identifies with the group that engages in harassment.
“It’s very difficult to define “rights” when we attach that definition to everything.”
Except that it’s not difficult at all when it’s codified in Title 17 of the United States Code.
“What I don’t understand is what rights they’re trying to protect exactly?”
The “free advertising” argument doesn’t hold water legally. It’s a desperate attempt by the video makers to justify them riding the coattails of the true content creators.
I admit there needs to be a more robust licensing system if the companies want these videos to exist, but the fact remains that the companies usually don’t get a say and have to deal with everything ex post facto because the video makers (for the most part) don’t respect any copyright.
The power SHOULD lie with the…
It’s not trolling against Fair Use. If anything, it’s correcting the misconceptions the laypeople have about Fair Use. Fair Use is limited in scope; it’s not carte blanche to infringe the rights of others.
The problem doesn’t lie with the companies protecting their rights - the problem lies with the people who don’t…
The problem in that case may be the amount of the original work that was included. If it was the entire trailer, then it may not qualify for a Fair Use affirmative defense.
A Let’s Play video isn’t a brief excerpt. Fair Use is not a valid defense when it comes to a Let’s Play video based on the four factors involved with that affirmative defense.
Unlike you, I understand Fair Use and the limitations it has. A Let’s Play video is not likely to withstand a Fair Use examination.
It’s actually quite intelligent to take back control over the IP and to defend the copyrights granted by law. I think it’s quite stupid to post other people’s work online, in violation of copyrights, and then to whine and complain when those infringing works receive takedown notices. Perhaps, if companies were more…
Self-righteous? No. Knowledgeable in the law? Yes.
I agree that there needs to be better communication on what the publisher will allow to be done with their IP. However, the problem isn’t really with the publisher; the problem is with the people posting the videos. Unless the publisher grants a license (as SquareEnix has implicitly done with the rules regarding how…
Infringement is infringement regardless of the number of subscribers or the number of people that see with infringing content.
When you bought the game, you did NOT obtain the copyright to the work. That copyright gives the holder the EXCLUSIVE right to perform the work publicly (or to license others to do so) in addition to the EXCLUSIVE right to create derivative works (or license others to do so).
Just because you bought the game doesn’t…
Streaming isn’t “Fair Use” - there’s a well-defined test for that, and streaming doesn’t really figure into the affirmative defense. What needs to be done is for consumers to realize that they AREN’T free to do whatever they want with someone else’s work, especially monetize it.
The real solution is to shut down all streaming - it’s a prima facie violation of a couple of exclusive rights of the copyright holders and Fair Use affirmative defenses usually fail.
I’m not trolling at all. It’s actually quite sickening how some people can be so nonchalant about infringing the rights of others. If they had their rights infringed on, they likely would be screaming bloody murder.
I’m rubber and you’re glue.
Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
It’s sad when people compare you to a dictator or a Nazi for wanting to enforce the current rules against people who are trampling the rights of others.