Why are songs and movies copyrighted but you can upload a full playthrough of a video game on YouTube?
In: 612
A couple things:
1.) There’s a good argument that playthroughs of video games (which largely have commentary) fall under fair use due to it being transformative in nature. You’re not just seeing the game, a part of what you’re experiencing is their reactions to the game. Movies or music being posted aren’t transformative in the same way
2.) It’s generally believed that video game playthroughs don’t harm sales and even potentially help as functional free marketing, there’s probably a lot of data supporting this that wouldn’t be public information, I doubt they’re just guessing with this. This is largely because a lot of games have choices, things one can miss, multiple ways of doing things and a lot of the appeal for many people with games is the challenge of doing it and discovering stuff yourself, all this stuff isn’t provided in watching a play though. Contrast this to movies and music where you would just get the whole experience seeing it on YouTube. Yes there might be diminished quality but this isn’t a massive factor for a lot of people and would absolutely cut into sales, and the free marketing angle doesn’t really make sense, since would people really watch a movie on YouTube then go buy it on DVD or whatever? Maybe some, but a lot won’t. Again, there’s likely actual data backing up this assumption that’s not publicly available
Gameplay isn’t copyrighted since it’s basically free advertising for a game and watching gameplay of a game doesn’t equal playing
I was just wondering this. I don’t believe playing is the same as watching. I also don’t think the companies care, because people are still buying despite the videos being uploaded. And as for the big YouTubers, they’re gifted the games so why would the companies hurt them.
I was just wondering this. I don’t believe playing is the same as watching. I also don’t think the companies care, because people are still buying despite the videos being uploaded. And as for the big YouTubers, they’re gifted the games so why would the companies hurt them.
Depending on the game you’ll totally get copyright claims
When I was young I tried making Let’s Plays and those got copyright claimed. Those were Nintendo games. I’ve also seen mid-sized Youtube Channels also get demonetized for playing Nintendo games.
Other developers take it as free advertising and don’t really care about giving out copyright claims.
Gameplay isn’t copyrighted since it’s basically free advertising for a game and watching gameplay of a game doesn’t equal playing
If I listen to a song on any medium, I’m listening to the song. If that medium does not collect royalties, the artist suffers.
If I watch a game being played, it is not the same as playing the game. And more than once, I have purchased a game after watching someone play it.
A couple things:
1.) There’s a good argument that playthroughs of video games (which largely have commentary) fall under fair use due to it being transformative in nature. You’re not just seeing the game, a part of what you’re experiencing is their reactions to the game. Movies or music being posted aren’t transformative in the same way
2.) It’s generally believed that video game playthroughs don’t harm sales and even potentially help as functional free marketing, there’s probably a lot of data supporting this that wouldn’t be public information, I doubt they’re just guessing with this. This is largely because a lot of games have choices, things one can miss, multiple ways of doing things and a lot of the appeal for many people with games is the challenge of doing it and discovering stuff yourself, all this stuff isn’t provided in watching a play though. Contrast this to movies and music where you would just get the whole experience seeing it on YouTube. Yes there might be diminished quality but this isn’t a massive factor for a lot of people and would absolutely cut into sales, and the free marketing angle doesn’t really make sense, since would people really watch a movie on YouTube then go buy it on DVD or whatever? Maybe some, but a lot won’t. Again, there’s likely actual data backing up this assumption that’s not publicly available
A couple things:
1.) There’s a good argument that playthroughs of video games (which largely have commentary) fall under fair use due to it being transformative in nature. You’re not just seeing the game, a part of what you’re experiencing is their reactions to the game. Movies or music being posted aren’t transformative in the same way
2.) It’s generally believed that video game playthroughs don’t harm sales and even potentially help as functional free marketing, there’s probably a lot of data supporting this that wouldn’t be public information, I doubt they’re just guessing with this. This is largely because a lot of games have choices, things one can miss, multiple ways of doing things and a lot of the appeal for many people with games is the challenge of doing it and discovering stuff yourself, all this stuff isn’t provided in watching a play though. Contrast this to movies and music where you would just get the whole experience seeing it on YouTube. Yes there might be diminished quality but this isn’t a massive factor for a lot of people and would absolutely cut into sales, and the free marketing angle doesn’t really make sense, since would people really watch a movie on YouTube then go buy it on DVD or whatever? Maybe some, but a lot won’t. Again, there’s likely actual data backing up this assumption that’s not publicly available
Gameplay isn’t copyrighted since it’s basically free advertising for a game and watching gameplay of a game doesn’t equal playing
Latest Answers