• dinckel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    A lot of people are going to be super quick to post something, but actually read what it says. If you stream or upload game footage before it’s official release date, they have full rights to shut you down

    • duncesplayed@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      If you stream or upload game footage before it’s official release date, they have full rights to shut you down

      The timing of it speaks to what kind of damages they might be seeking, but it doesn’t change the overall principle of it. Streaming or uploading video footage makes a derivative work or a partial copy, and I think that’s pretty well established by now, regardless of whether it’s done before release, right after release, or 20 years later.

      I know, people do it all the time, anyway. Well, there are “fair use” cases where copyright law can get a little more lenient (like if you’re giving a tutorial, or the footage relates to some academic commentary), but most of the video game footage you see online isn’t there because it’s legal, but because nobody really cares about it (or is suffering any damage from it). In principle it’s still not legal.

    • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why do they have full right. They don’t own anything but the game. What gives them any right to do anything but try to sue.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Review embargoes are a pretty well understood concept.

        Sometimes the review embargoes don’t end until the game release or just before it. Not this was a review so that wouldn’t matter anyway this was just directly recording the content which is always going to be illegal.

      • whileloop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Obligatory I am not a lawyer, this is just my opinion.

        A let’s play is a derivative work. You can claim fair use, but that’s hard to do. Fair use often boils down to a question of ‘does the derivative work compete with the original enough to cause a loss in sales?’ Think of when people film themselves watching a movie for YouTube, without cutting anything out and barely commentating over anything, meaning that someone could watch their video instead of the movie and get almost the same content.

        In this case, he filmed himself playing the entirety of a visual novel. I think it’s fair to say that for a lot of people, his let’s play could absolutely substitute for playing the game, thus losing sales for the developer.

        • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          But losing sales for the company should not be a criminal act. A sternly written letter should be the maximum punishment while the company pounds sand

          • duncesplayed@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah this part of it isn’t getting enough attention. Take down his videos? Totally normal. Make him pay for some damages? Sure, I guess. Put him in prison? What the fuck?

            • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              I would say it’s wrong they can get the video taken done. If he created the video then it’s his. They should have to pound sand

      • Delphia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Putting it in the simple most non legalese way possible.

        To go to the trouble of pressing charges or suing you have to show “damages” (Physical, financial, emotional) and official reviewers almost always have to sign “embargo” paperwork telling them explicitly what they can and cant talk about before a certain date.

        By putting this content out before release, he potentially impacted sales by a noticable amount and likely either obtained the copy illegally, unethically or broke contract to do so.

        They can likely show damages and point to breach of the law in doing so.