All users will need to merge their Minecraft Forum account with a new or existing Twitch account starting October 23rd. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
  • 0

    posted a message on What Is Your Favorite Video Game Quote?
    "Huh, you know, little stiff, voice keeps changing, but I'm good." (referencing the fact that he had a different voice actor in every Legend of Spyro game.)


    "Look, dragons! Yes! We are saved! Whoo!"
    ...
    "Aaaagh! Those aren't dragons! We're all going to die!"


    "You with me? Let's blow this dam thing up!" (yes, it's supposed to be spelled that way.)

    ---

    -Sparx, from The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon. There are just way too many quotes to list in one post.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on What did you got for Christmas?



    I still have some other stuff to unwrap when I get back home. This is what I got from my dad's side of my family.

    EDIT: Whoops. I meant to put only one $5 in there.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Google's new 'Content ID' Policy for YouTube
    Quote from Taupo

    But they're not, they didn't create anything inside the video, they're just showing the visual content of someone else's creation. The game creator created what you're seeing, the video uploader did not. What the video uploader generally does is provide some sort of commentary, which is fine, but you still need the permission of the creator of the content before it's profited from.

    To say the game developer is 'stealing' is ridiculous, they made the game, they made the visual content and therefore they own the rights to the video. Like it or not, that's the law.


    So answer this question for me, then. If you make a video in which you showcase both a video game made by Nintendo and a game that you've made, does that video belong to Nintendo? Should they be able to claim it, even though half the content doesn't belong to them?

    The video itself doesn't belong to the anybody but the person who made it. I don't care if it contains 30 songs with individual copyrights to them. Every person that made those songs still has zero rights to claim ownership of that video. If you put this same logic into reality, that would mean that if you built your own house on government-owned land, that government should be allowed to take your house from you and claim it as their own.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Google's new 'Content ID' Policy for YouTube
    Quote from Dinh AaronMk

    Yes. A handful of developers. Then they probably pay the commentator off to glaze over the glaring issues.


    Chucklefish gave Etho a copy of Starbound the day before it came out. I don't think they expected that of him.

    Quote from Dinh AaronMk

    Having indulged in the Metal Gear Solid franchise through Let's Play, I now have no reason to actually purchase MGS1/Twin Snakes, MGS2, 3, 4, and Rising since games like those are nothing more than an interactive movie (more so MGS4), which may hurt Kojima's end-quarter sales of his Metal Gear series.


    If you're selling a game that only has a storyline to it and nothing else, then yes, I can understand how LPer's could be hurting them. However, there are many people out there who get locked into a series of games and would rather buy the game and experience it for themselves than to watch an LP of it, which means that the company still makes some money.

    Quote from Dinh AaronMk

    Yes. A handful of developers. Then they probably pay the commentator off to glaze over the glaring issues.
    On analysis of the Let's Playing phenomenon, The average video game title can hit a price tag of sixty dollars. And several hundred for the system alone or the PC platform you want to play it on. It is for a lot of people: an expensive hobby. So who's there to make it totally more free and cost less for people to indulge in the latest pop-culture story told in a digital medium, or wacky multiplayer encounters? Let's Play.


    This same logic can be applied to television. You now have the capability of watching every single movie, television show or otherwise without paying the people who made it a cent by simply recording it. Does that mean we should get rid of televisions as well?

    Quote from Dinh AaronMk

    There is also the factoring in of such advertising black marks as the wrong Let's Player making the wrong jokes about your game and to totally devalue the art, atmosphere, and message in the game by making terrible jokes all over it. So then it doesn't become about the game, but the person playing it. And then what happens? The game becomes a visual backdrop and backstaged. The commentator makes their seventy five cents off you, and none of it goes to the developer that the video is supposed to be about. This also goes back to the point I made earlier where the money these people make are not going to the person who actually made the video game to compensate for the lost sales potential.


    This is the one thing that I can completely agree with, however. It's one of the major reasons that I hate most big YouTubers.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Google's new 'Content ID' Policy for YouTube
    Quote from Dinh AaronMk

    YouTube/Google's just trying to keep out of the hair of the people with power, which is to say the developers and federal law enforcement. Gaming channels don't mean squat in the grand scheme of things. More-so since they drove the bandwagon into oblivion.


    How is it that gaming channels mean nothing? The people that get onto YouTube and post LP's are advertising company products. In fact, many have even begun to give early-released copies of their games to video game commentators for the fact that it'll help their sales rise when they first put their games out there. Even some of these over-rated YouTubers such as Tobuscus are still helping them make a profit.

    The only real issue with gaming channels is the fact that a vast majority of them seem to focus mainly on already popular games or on new ones that everyone wants to buy. That's why not every game is able to recieve a fairly equal amount of attention as any other.

    I can understand that gaming channels can and do have a negative effect, but in the end, they still play a major role in helping video game developers gain a profit. If they begin to push LPer's out of the picture, companies are going to figure out that they're the only ones left who can advertise their products.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Google's new 'Content ID' Policy for YouTube
    I suppose that I will also mention that a new video was posted last night by the same guy. This one is about the new "Remove a song" feature that Google has added for YouTubers to get rid of copywritten music.

    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on You're at a restaurant...
    I have a better idea.



    They serve both, and it's a buffet. Pay the same price to eat a small portion of each.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Google's new 'Content ID' Policy for YouTube
    Quote from Soorena

    But that still affects you because their system tags the videos you watch automatically. Companies like Blizzard and Bethesda have confirmed that they are not tagging videos but the system does. This is a terrible idea for many reasons. I was going to watch a review only to find out it was blocked because they used the music and showed a part of the game WTF? So instead of showing the game and showing people how the game looks now you gotta sit in front of a webcam and just freaking talk about it without showing images, videos, or music from the game. This is ridiculous.


    What I've been told is that some companies such as Activsion (whom I personally hate) have decided that they dont' want any video game commentators or otherwise making money off their games. That's why they would enjoy claiming ownership of videos that show off their products. But what they don't realize is that, in doing this, it removes the advertisement of their products on YouTube, since the content producers will lose their ability to post as much or as often. It's basically either lose money or lose advertisement, which in turn makes you lose money. Of course, I doubt large corporations really bother to think of it that way.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Google's new 'Content ID' Policy for YouTube
    Quote from Phoenix

    The only thing I ever listen on youtube is music from companies that doesn't care about copyrights. Not going to affect me much.


    That's fine. But there are many people who will be affect, and I made this topic for those people to see. Not everyone goes onto YouTube to watch random videos or listen to miscellaneous songs.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Google's new 'Content ID' Policy for YouTube
    Quote from Phoenix

    I don't care about who "owns" the video as long as I can watch it.
    It might not be fair but at least the users get to watch said video.


    This is why we don't agree. I, myself, care about the content producers that I'm subscribed to. Many of them have contracts with YouTube or other companies that allow them to use their videos as a primary source of income. That allows them to keep producing their videos, because they have the time and desire to do so. If these types of policies continue to get published, they will lose out on a lot of money, which in turns requires that they find another means of getting money. In the end, the content producers, you and I will no longer benefit, because there won't be content producers on YouTube any longer. They won't have the time, or at least they'll have so little time to produce videos that they won't be able to make ... probably even half of the amount that they do now. Everyone suffers from this, including you.

    Quote from Phoenix

    The only thing that companies are looking for is music, movies and potentially some videos games.


    If you watch the whole video, you'll see that they're penalizing people just for having in-game atmospheric sounds playing. They could change this, of course. However, looking at the way Google has run YouTube so far, I really doubt they'd care to do so.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Google's new 'Content ID' Policy for YouTube
    Quote from Phoenix

    It's not stealing if you don't have the right to use whatever you used in your video. Whoever owns the right are just taking what's theirs.


    The video isn't theirs. They have the ability to tell people whether or not their content can be put on YouTube. However, at the end of the day, the video wasn't made by them, and therefore, they have no rights to own it. With this system, if you posted a video tutorial on how to fix a hole in a car tire, the person who made that specific brand of car can claim that it's a promotional video showing off their product, claim ownership of that video and place advertisements on it, despite the fact that it isn't the focus of the video. Does that sound right to you?
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Google's new 'Content ID' Policy for YouTube
    Quote from Phoenix

    Isn't it better than just deleting it though?


    Stealing content (and in the case of people with contracts, money) from people, giving it to others and allowing them to benefit from it. That sounds better than the video being taken down?
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Google's new 'Content ID' Policy for YouTube
    Quote from StalePhish

    This isn't anything new. My first "Content ID" offense was in 2007 when I was playing a cover of The Story So Far by New Found Glory on my guitar. I think you could barely hear the original music I had turned almost all the way down playing in the background. What happened was within a few days, Universal Music Group hit my video and put their advertisements on it and made it so the video wasn't even available in some countries.


    Well, if they were able to place adverts on your video for using copywritten music, I could understand that. But the thing is, with this new system, not only can they advertise on your video, they're actually given ownership of it without you having any say so. Google is just giving other people's hard-work to others so that they benefit from it.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Google's new 'Content ID' Policy for YouTube

    I was going to check my subscriptions last night and I came across this video in my feed. It explains the changes that Google has implemented into their copyright policies.

    To give you a basic summary of it, Google has now enabled the creators of copywritten material to claim ownership of videos with their content (which they have no rights to own), place ads on it and gain money from it; the content producers have no say in the matter whatsoever. Their only choice is to delete the video. In other words, Google has now permitted theft on YouTube.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on I love school, can't live without it. And you?
    I had no problems with going to school. At least, not until my senior year, which was worse than all other eleven years combined. I spent three years in middle school as the most bullied kid by junior AND high shcool students, had rude teacher that I absolutely despised, and yet, I'd soon go back to that than to take my final year of school again.

    Also, I spent fifth grade through my junior year in a school system in Oklahoma and took my senior year in Virginia, which had a very negative effect. For those who may not know this about U.S, the school systems have different levels of education depending on where you're at. On the east coast, education is designed to be a lot more strict and stressful. But as you travel out to the mid-west, education becomes more laid back and, in turn, lowers the amount of stress. So despite the fact that I could get an A in all of my classes (minus English) when I was in OK, when I took Physics in my senior year, I learned literally nothing at all. Every single time I had to answer any question in that class, my response was either guessed, left blank or cheated (which didn't happen that often).
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.