71–80 of 88 posts
A lot of streamers actually do this. There was a streamer house that did this exact thing a month ago. And also the biggest female streamer also employed an "editor" who was previously ripping content straight from her stream.
Last year I created an extension just for that. All it does is turn let you know that the video you are watching is a reupload and provides a link to the original. https://www.youdupe.app/
Just what we need more MFA spam - did you not think even for on second about the ethics of what you are doing.
Note: I don't know anything about games or livestreaming. This is a genuine question about something that confuses me. Can someone explain why livestreamers can claim their stream as their own original content, but reuploaders can't? I mean, someone who livestreams a game is primarily showing off the artwork and level design and everything put in by the game company. There's like 90% derived content plus 10% original…
It sounds a bit like saying that any classic painting was 90% created from materials provided by other companies: canvas, oil colors, various chemicals, and painter just used those, but then took all the credits. The thing is that the value comes from the uniqueness of the final work, and painter and in this case the streamer are the only ones who provide that crucial element. Without them there's nothing, viewers wo…
As to your argument; the re-uploaders create additional value of their own, and it's no less derivative or valid than the work of a streamer.
Note: I don't know anything about games or livestreaming. This is a genuine question about something that confuses me. Can someone explain why livestreamers can claim their stream as their own original content, but reuploaders can't? I mean, someone who livestreams a game is primarily showing off the artwork and level design and everything put in by the game company. There's like 90% derived content plus 10% original…
Would louisville slugger get to claim any rights for a baseball game? What about the designer of a fancy chess set? The game itself is usually meaningless. It's the personality, skill, and strategy of the players that matters.
Note: I don't know anything about games or livestreaming. This is a genuine question about something that confuses me. Can someone explain why livestreamers can claim their stream as their own original content, but reuploaders can't? I mean, someone who livestreams a game is primarily showing off the artwork and level design and everything put in by the game company. There's like 90% derived content plus 10% original…
In a similar fashion imagine if you created a book and then streamed yourself reading it out loud for 5 hours in 1 video and then someone came in and cut that 5 hour audio book up into 100x 5-10 minute clips where you talk about a specific point and put it all up on Youtube. And now they are making $15,000 a month from the millions of views it's getting because they did a good job with titling everything. At this poi…
1. The creation of the unlicensed audio book was tolerated
2. There is a presumption that the unlicensed audio book should be protected from derivative works that profit from it
It's hard because the intolerance of derivatives works in (2) is inconsistent with the tolerance of the derivative work in (1); and so raises the question of when do unlicensed derivatives convert from tolerable to intolerable.
This is outside of all but the most liberal interpretations of fair use, IMHO.
I'm honestly surprised at how bad Youtube is at policing reuploaded content. Compare this to, say, music rights enforcement, where a car with a loud stereo passing you in the street can cause your video to be demonetized or taken down for rights violations. This goes beyond reuploading. There are a ton of videos that use some clickbait-y title, the likeness of a creator and have inaccurate titles about what they cont…
How is your magic algorithm will distinguish "bad" channels from game reviewers,movie critics and other reviwers? Or should they all be banned too? Also how it will detect that something is fair use?
Asmongold made a good move. I follow his stream since 2017 and it's one of the best. He did something interesting that no one (companies, individuals) normally does: he has let several of his fans create their own videos using his image, something unthinkable for today's brands that just for the sake of mentioning them already take you down the content. When these fans already amassed the popularity, instead of cance…
> Asmongold made a good move. No, the actual good move would have been for him to pay someone, or a company, a percentage of the revenue to make high quality videos for him, at the very begining. The fact that he didn't do this, in the first place, means that he left hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table, which he could have captured if he had put a bit of effort into paying someone to make his youtube channe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds a bit like saying that any classic painting was 90% created from materials provided by other companies: canvas, oil colors, various chemicals, and painter just used those, but then took all the credits. The thing is that the value comes from the uniqueness of the final work, and painter and in this case the streamer are the only ones who provide that crucial element. Without them there's nothing, viewers wo…
Classic painters often mixed their own paints; or had a team of understudies who would do it. They didn't simply pop on down to the general store and buy some paint. As to your argument; the re-uploaders create additional value of their own, and it's no less derivative or valid than the work of a streamer.
Derivative work is well, derivative, and it's regulated by the law, whether it's a translation or sampling of music or video compilation. Depending on the country/state the definition by law differs, but generally you're allowed to use only small portions of other people's work and there's a requirement to create something that is significantly different to the work used, so that it can be considered as an original piece. So re-uploading is very fringe activity in the eyes of the copyright law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that was true, they would be doing it without games - they would just be sitting there and chatting for example. But since they don't, it mostly means that for those streamers people would not have watched them without the game being played, so the question of whether the game or streamer is at 90% of value it quite open.
"Just Chatting" is so popular on Twitch there's an entire category for it: https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Just%20Chatting