Phil Fish compares Youtubers to pirates

TheTurnipKing » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:15 pm wrote:If it belongs to them, what the strawberry float are we giving them money for?

Oh, that's right. A licence to USE their software. And what is this, if not using it?

You have the right to use it under certain conditions, like with a film you don't have the right to screen it in public if you buy the Blu-Ray even though you 'bought' the film.

And before you trot out the line that games are made to be played and therefore different, I'll say it again, that isn't the point.

Moggy » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:14 pm wrote:So if I make money from a computer, Apple should get a cut? If I am a taxi driver then Ford should get a cut? If I run a magazine with Photoshopped photos then Adobe should get a cut?

When you buy those things you are either outright buying them for use or in the case of photoshop you are licensed to use it in certain ways which include producing content that you can get paid for.

When you buy a game you are buying a license to play that game, not to make money from it. That right unless explicitly given to you remains with the owner of the content you have licensed.

I really liked Fez, up until the point my save messed up.

This guy doesn't half come off with some shite though. He loves the attention.

I personally have enjoyed watching people on Twitch speedrun Mario 64, Sunshine and Ocarina of Time. Still can't believe I watched someone play PoT for over 4 hours while they got the WR for 100%.

Don't think I've watched any other playthroughs.

HSH28 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:38 pm wrote:

Moggy » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:14 pm wrote:So if I make money from a computer, Apple should get a cut? If I am a taxi driver then Ford should get a cut? If I run a magazine with Photoshopped photos then Adobe should get a cut?

When you buy those things you are either outright buying them for use or in the case of photoshop you are licensed to use it in certain ways which include producing content that you can get paid for.

When you buy a game you are buying a license to play that game, not to make money from it. That right unless explicitly given to you remains with the owner of the content you have licensed.

But they're playing it. And they're making money by doing it.

This, to me, looks like it falls into a very firmly undefined "grey area".

It's like someone setting up a business on your front lawn that sells pictures of your house. Even if they put a lot of work into their business, (which is rare for LPers) it is still only possible due to your property. So I understand why some developers feel entitled to a cut.

They are stupid to voice their opinion on the matter though. Youtubers usually increase sales if the game is good (more so for indies), and saying that you hate youtubers will only result in bad PR.

He's right. Anyone playing a board game on youtube should also have to pay royalties to the company that made it.

Also anyone posting pictures of a museum or attraction on the internet should have to pay royalties to the creator.

Shut up Phil Fish you stupid banana split.

1cmanny1 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:25 pm wrote:It's like someone setting up a business on your front lawn that sells pictures of your house. Even if they put a lot of work into their business, (which is rare for LPers) it is still only possible due to your property. So I understand why some developers feel entitled to a cut.

They are stupid to voice their opinion on the matter though. Youtubers usually increase sales if the game is good (more so for indies), and saying that you hate youtubers will only result in bad PR.

But there are plenty of places that sell photos of faomous places/buildings with no compensation to the creator(s)

Good (Proper good, as few as there are) let's players are as good as good sport's commentators.
And as Total Biscuit has said many times. People don't watch a let's players videos for the game footage, they watch them for the let's player. If it were just footage of the game with no commentary people would no WAY watch those videos. At least not to such an extent.

Cal » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:16 pm wrote:But more importantly: PewDiePie makes $4million a year?

How in the name of all things Holy is this even possible?

By having 28 million subscribers.

Fade » Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:09 am wrote:He's right. Anyone playing a board game on youtube should also have to pay royalties to the company that made it.

Also anyone posting pictures of a museum or attraction on the internet should have to pay royalties to the creator.

Shut up Phil Fish you stupid banana split.

1cmanny1 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:25 pm wrote:It's like someone setting up a business on your front lawn that sells pictures of your house. Even if they put a lot of work into their business, (which is rare for LPers) it is still only possible due to your property. So I understand why some developers feel entitled to a cut.

They are stupid to voice their opinion on the matter though. Youtubers usually increase sales if the game is good (more so for indies), and saying that you hate youtubers will only result in bad PR.

But there are plenty of places that sell photos of faomous places/buildings with no compensation to the creator(s)

Good (Proper good, as few as there are) let's players are as good as good sport's commentators.
And as Total Biscuit has said many times. People don't watch a let's players videos for the game footage, they watch them for the let's player. If it were just footage of the game with no commentary people would no WAY watch those videos. At least not to such an extent.

Do you have an example? I am talking about the owner.

Also not many people would watch LPers just talking either, so you can easily twist that around. Not really on topic, but I was shocked to hear that TB is only 29. He looks like 40. The guy has cancer as well.

TheTurnipKing » Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:15 pm wrote:

HSH28 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:03 pm wrote:Those of you saying that videos on Youtube don't negatively effect sales of a game (and might even help those sales) are completely missing the point. That isn't the point, its got absolutely nothing to do with the point.

If you are making money out of something that belongs to someone else then they deserve a cut. In fact the owner of that content should be able to decide what you can and can't do with it.

It's that simple.

If it belongs to them, what the strawberry float are we giving them money for?

Oh, that's right. A licence to USE their software. And what is this, if not using it?

It's using the software to make money off it - which isn't allowed. In fact, it's very clearly not allowed. See, we can dance around the semantics all we like, but in the end using someone else's IP to make money off, without any express permission to do so, means that Phil Fish actually has a legal point that simply cannot be ignored.

Andrew: I'm certain that you consider what you do to be professional - this is not a personal dig at what you do.

But let's just take what I do for a living (graphic design) and let's imagine I decide to snatch a ton of design assets from someone else. If I then use those assets to generate money for myself, passing them off as my own work, then I'm clearly on very shaky legal ground. Yes, I may have spent an inordinate amount of time 'repurposing' those stolen assets, but they are still stolen assets regardless of what time I might have invested in rearranging them. The fact is I didn't originate them, I merely moved them about and then passed them off as my own and charged someone else for the right to enjoy my 'efforts'.

This is Phil Fish's argument. I think he has a valid point.

Meanwhile, TotalBiscuit has naturally weighed-in to remind us all that what he does is not breaking anyone's copyright...



...And so has Jim Sterling...

I don't know, I think it's an ill-defined area of law (as are most areas trying to control or regulate the internet being used to make new media from old).

However, I must admit, I'm struggling to find much legal defence for the Let's Players (though I can find plenty of market justifications). The idea of media being sold to you with restrictions on how it can be used is not new. Every video I've bought since I was a nipper has come with a copyright notice that says it's for home use only and can't be shown at school or on oil rigs (why oil rigs? Being that specific about 'strawberry float oil rigs' always bothered me), so the idea of a game being sold on the basis that it will be played at home to a relatively small audience is neither new nor surprising.

Nor would it be new nor surprising for a school that made money by charging admission to pupils to watch the movie being slammed for it.

So I don't see why it's so surprising that a games company, having sold you a game with a licence on the basis that it will be played by a relatively small audience at home, would think that there is a conflict if, instead, you broadcast your play to an audience of millions and make millions of dollars off it.

As I say, I can think of countless market justifications (I still think that Amnesia owes its success primarily to such LPs, and Slender; The Arrival just straight up wouldn't exist had LPs of the freeware Slender not got so much coverage), but the legal ground is definitely shaky.

Is Fez available on the PS4 and has the game share facility been disabled for it?

Yes it's on PS4 and no, the share functionality isn't disabled, but you can't make money from PS4's share feature.

Fade » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:09 pm wrote:
Good (Proper good, as few as there are) let's players are as good as good sport's commentators.
And as Total Biscuit has said many times. People don't watch a let's players videos for the game footage, they watch them for the let's player. If it were just footage of the game with no commentary people would no WAY watch those videos. At least not to such an extent.

Not saying that I agree with Phil Fish totally but it is interesting to compare it with something like the RiffTrax guys who do funny voice-over tracks for movies and shorts. Some of their stuff is sold along with the film they are riffing on if they either have obtained the rights or it is open license material, otherwise they are sold as mp3 tracks which you can then sync up with a copy of the film that the user owns.

jiggles » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:00 am wrote:Yes it's on PS4 and no, the share functionality isn't disabled, but you can't make money from PS4's share feature.

Piracy and copyright infringement have nothing to do with whether somebody makes money from it or not. While the Pirate Bay made money from adverts, other file sharing that made no money at all is also illegal.

If Fish is so bothered by people sharing videos of his games, he ought to get video sharing on the PS4 disabled for his game.

Moggy » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:05 am wrote:Piracy and copyright infringement have nothing to do with whether somebody makes money from it or not.

True enough, but it might be a deciding factor in choosing your battles as it were.

Disney aren't going to go after a kid drawing Mickeys all over his school book, but they might go after a company selling knock-off merchandise. Both are copyright infringement, but scale and profitability will be deciding factors in whether further action is pursued.

Skarjo » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:09 am wrote:

Moggy » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:05 am wrote:Piracy and copyright infringement have nothing to do with whether somebody makes money from it or not.

True enough, but it might be a deciding factor in choosing your battles as it were.

Disney aren't going to go after a kid drawing Mickeys all over his school book, but they might go after a company selling knock-off merchandise. Both are copyright infringement, but scale and profitability will be deciding factors in whether further action is pursued.

Is there also the difference that piracy costs the creator money through lost sales whereas copyright infringement makes someone else money off of the creator's work?

Skarjo » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:09 am wrote:

Moggy » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:05 am wrote:Piracy and copyright infringement have nothing to do with whether somebody makes money from it or not.

True enough, but it might be a deciding factor in choosing your battles as it were.

Disney aren't going to go after a kid drawing Mickeys all over his school book, but they might go after a company selling knock-off merchandise. Both are copyright infringement, but scale and profitability will be deciding factors in whether further action is pursued.

I agree, that's why I gave the examples of the Pirate Bay (making money) and other file sharing sites that didn't make money. The studios went after them all.

The fact that the PS4 and Xbone include video sharing as a basic feature, shows that the majority of the video game industry has no problem with people sharing clips of their gaming sessions. Some people go further and add their own commentary and make money if they are popular. I fail to see the problem, nobody is making money from clips of Fez by itself (which Fish has no problem with), people are making money by adding their own thoughts to clips of Fez.

Moggy » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:15 am wrote:...people are making money by adding their own thoughts to clips of Fez.

Isn't that just a bit like singing over the top of your favourite records and then selling them as your own work..?

The studios did, but I think the reason that file-sharing sites were taken down wasn't quite the same as this. File sharers were targeted because they were seen as lost sales, so whether the site itself was making money wasn't the issue; it was the perceived loss of revenue that spurred the takedowns.

I don't think anyone is arguing that LPs really represent a lost revenue stream in the way movie piracy does, more just a monetised exploitation of copyrighted material which is why people are seeking royalties rather than making accusations of theft.

I actually sympathise with him to an extent though, I think there's a difference between someone making clips (like the built in clip features) for free and charging for those clips because you've talked over them.

Like, quite a few people have narrated some stories that I've written. Now, when it's someone doing it for fun and putting it out there for free I completely support that. It's great exposure for one, but it's all good fun. But when someone does it (as they have) and then puts ads all over it or charges people to hear it, and I've been completely cut out of the revenue, I feel annoyed. As much as it's their narration, it is my story, and their revenue stream wouldn't exist without my work.

As I say, it's not clear-cut, and I think there are pros and cons on both sides, but I do think that people who've had their copyrighted works used, for profit and against licence, by Youtubers do have legitimate grounds for dispute.