okay… so… youtubers can take games, make commentary, and make money …
soo… can game devs take commentary, make gameplay, and make money?
not entirely sure how itd be done, but… yeah… just throwing this out there…
like, okay, so recently Angry Joe made a rant about nintendo taking down his video on gameplay, and yeah, its stupid, youd think Nintendo would desire FREE ADVERTISING!! … hell… id want ANY and ALL youtubers to play my games…
but on the other hand… the end of this video 8:00 +, is true… but, that truth he says seems outrageous, makes me think youtubers shouldnt be allowed to do what they do… …
the legacy of Jim Sterling inherits of the legacy of video game devs… and so… could the legacy of video game devs inherit of the legacy of youtubers?? (or really, any other content)
now yes, i suppose most media inherits from other media, but they always make it “illegal” to directly copy… but… yeah… doesnt make sense to me anymore…
but yeah, the dev attacked Jim with a youtube takedown claim thingy
… now, personally I dont believe in intellectual property, in some ways… money is a construct of society, whereas creation/ creativity is a natural law. Humans are the magicians of the universe, our minds as a ‘tool’ we embody the creative law … to put bounds upon the creative law is a disgrace to the natural order.
like… some mod? or something of a Mario N64 was taken down by nintendo?? … lawyer suit idiot dude, let us have fun… omfg… what a lame sob…
… well, ANY creation has more value than can even be fathomed by monetary value, money really has NOTHING to do with the true value of a creation
what is the monetary value of the first creation of fire by humans?
what if a law was made that fire cannot be reproduced by anyone else?
hmm… but then there is the idea that, a property (/creation) is to be Owned for the purpose of “preserving the integrity of the creation” (remaining true to the creators vision of the creation) … however… the value of a creation is a relative thing, “one mans garbage is another’s treasure” … the value is relative to the human observer’s perception, and so, any creation is most valuable when it is mutable*,* and able to be shaped into the particular observer’s definition of value*… see minecraft, or Unity…*
… lol eh idk just thoughts…
i prefer to make stuff myself, (but yeah im relying upon Unity, and Windows, etc) but, when you see people enforce their property of these things, its just lame…
Fire was not created.
The intent of copyright is to foster creativity and ensure that the creators can profit and continue to create. Jim S is a troll and a douche. I agree with his comments and almost always find him funny, and this is no exception. But he isn’t complaining about copyright, just poor behavior on the part of those developers.
His use of the trailer is perfectly acceptable and copyright law specifically allows for this. What the developers did was exploit the beauracracy of the scale of YouTube. Copyright isn’t the issue here, is simply a case of a person/group exploiting a system. And not understanding copyright first place.
2 Likes
no im saying, the truth that his legacy is of the legacy of the game dev…
can the legacy of a game dev be of his?
can i make a game with jim sterling videos in my game?
why not? … doesnt make sense that i would not be able to … except that he makes money from ads/ patreon, and id be making money from direct sales… although, i could make it so my money is from ads/patreon … or not care about money at all, and simply inherit from his legacy,
yes, fire was not created… however, every time you create a fire, you are creating a fire. (so yeah its the means of creating fire that was created… and yeah its not a solid example, and yet it can be… is the means by which a lightbulb emits light, not of the natural world that already exists?)
lol and right now TotalBiscuit is talking about youtube is going to have a subscription service… now, That, is direct sales isnt it? … and so… yeah… i imagine the content available to use that system will be limited?? … i know nothing of it, im listening to cooptional podcast stream
LOOOOOOOL!!!
okay yeah… so TB has adblock because if he is streaming and an ad comes up, he’s potential legal trouble because he streams someone else’s ad… (or moreso he doesnt want to ad for not pay)
…
soo… ads want to be seen, and yet, you cant show someones ad because they own the ad…
like, how music is blocked on twitch
MAKES NO SENSE
What are you actually asking? Just if you can make a game featuring YouTube video content? It started out with something like that but you seem to be focusing more on copyright laws and how much you dislike them. Or is that what you are asking is just in general what of others content can you use without breaking laws?
When discussing IP protection its important to understand the distinctions. Patents, copyrights and trademarks are all different. They apply in different circumstances and have different implications. Fire could never be protected under copyright.
Fire, as an invention or discovery would have been covered by patent law. The inventors of fire would have had ~20 years to extract as much value from the discovery as they could make. Across that time they would have made an incredible profit. After the 20 year period fire becomes a generic, and can be used by anybody with two sticks to rub together. This generic competition highly incentives the development of new inventions and discoveries. The profits from fire could have been invested in the wheel, moving its development 100,000 years earlier. And I’d be in the engine room of the Enterprise, rather than running a factory to produce something as mundane as food that grows in the ground.
Of course, the society and government of cave man days when fire was discovered was incapable of enforcing, or even conceiving, of a system like todays IP protection laws. So speculation is moot.
No. Because it is a violation of copyright law.
You could write an article or make a video that is a critique or commentary on his videos and use a portion of his video in it. Copyright specifically allows for this. It is simple and makes perfect sense.
[quote=“CaoMengde777, post:4, topic: 575851, username:CaoMengde777”]
yes, fire was not created… however, every time you create a fire, you are creating a fire. (so yeah its the means of creating fire that was created… and yeah its not a solid example, and yet it can be… is the means by which a lightbulb emits light, not of the natural world that already exists?)
[/quote]
Fire is not created. Fire is the result of a chemical reaction. If you throw a coffee cup on the ground, you did not just a create a “smash”. You broke a cup.
Lightning and volcanoes could have sued for prior art. 
You could try it and see what happens, I bet if they did a “takedown” you could get some free publicity and show them for being blowhards.
lol yeah idk throwing ideas ^.^
… so i take a portion of jim sterlings videos and make a game out of it…
same thing he’s doing, taking a portion of a game and making a video out of it…
If I can patent a wheat genomes you could patent fire. You could even go further and patent things like cooking, using a fire for heating and so forth. A clever corporation could make it last for years. All you would need to prove is that no human had done the art before, and that the art was not immediately obvious to another human being well versed in the art.
Then again, the volcanoes and lightening were often personified by early cultures, and could be considered legal entities in their own right. A shaman may well sue for prior art on behalf of the mountain. However as the shaman was the most likely one to hold the patent in the first place this may not be as significant an issue as you think.
I feel like I’m writing the plot to a Terry Pratchett novel. 
1 Like
You need a plugin that can play videos on textures (coherent UI can do it), then you pick up an exhibit (theres 1 on the asset store for $10), so when you get close to it play the video. Then throw it on greenlight and wait for the shitstorm
unity has built in video textures
… id do more than simply put videos in a software… id make a game out of it… with interacts and moving stuff and stuff to kill or some craps…
idk … lol … im kinda not that lame but it was an idea… ???
make it someway that… so… a video commentary/lets play of a game is, a showcase of it and critique of an experience…
therefore id make a game that is a showcase and critique of the experience of watching X youtube video channel … and make a different game for each different youtube channels
“lets watch” ?? or something…
i guess popular perception of the video game medium wouldnt be receptive of the idea all so much??
either way, its all just pictures on a screen, lets play or lets watch
instead of an article or a video … what about a video game? … i could make a 3d animation i suppose… what about a video game?
now, what about “fan games” like the AVGN games… i suppose they got permission to use his likeness?? … what if they didnt? … ultimately its a case -to- case thing…
but, what about lets plays?? no one gave them permission to make those videos… its just allowed, although … nintendo doesnt allow it… so… its a case - to- case thing?
Here is the game. You put up short clips of these baragrugous clowns spouting their drivel on poly planes at the rear of the firing range. You have a palette along the bottom with various projectiles… a tomato, an old shoe, a cream pie, a brick, a bowling ball bomb, a cruise missile and an A-Bomb. A snip of one of their quotes starts and you have to choose a projectile and launch it before they finish the quote. Extra points for head and crotch shot hits. Variants on launch methods is used to make it somewhat skill based. A catapult, a slingshot or throwing arm for some and for the missile and A bomb there is an arc trajectory that has to be reckoned based on distance to hit the poly planes.