Jim Spergling

[Keith Chegwin]

They must be LITERAL shaking from the realization that PDP is too big too fail via social justice.

Even JonTron was too big to fail

[da PAC Nigguh]

They must be LITERAL shaking from the realization that PDP is too big too fail via social justice.

Even JonTron was too big to fail

The only people who fail via social justice are those that do so willingly.

[Kugelfisch]

They must be LITERAL shaking from the realization that PDP is too big too fail via social justice.

Even JonTron was too big to fail

The only people who fail via social justice are those that do so willingly.

Exactly this. Felix can and has told them before to fuck off. Jon just sat it out but could likewise have told them to fuck off. Shit, Jon has been /ourguy/ for a really long time even before him stating to not want illegals in his home nation.
The SocJus slaves like to shout all the time how they don't want any right wing viewers. Guess what, that works the other way around as well. Over half the USA population isn't on their side and on the internet you'll find plenty of an audience long after all the libshits have fucked off.
The only power they ever held was trying to get people fired from their jobs. If you'll get fired because some random cunt calls your boss and talks shit about you, it's time to leave that place anyway. Fuck 'em! The pendulum is swinging in the other direction now. Let them feel it.

[Guest]

Jim Sterlings body on camera for everyone to see is more offensive in every way than some white dude saying "fucking niggers"



It's a shitty walking simulator, this response is exactly what you should expect

[Guest]

fuck censorship

It is so ironic they want to ban other people and calling them the fascists.

[Kugelfisch]

>we gave away 3000 copies of our walking simulator as an attempt to buy shills that way
>making video games is so hard buuhuu
>people say mean stuff about our games buhuuuuhuuu
>we're part of the indie circlejerk and will try to abuse that against anyone we don't like
Lads, that's the cancer killing vidya we're looking at. Death to the indie scene!

[rabidtictac]

I can't help but feel extreme pity for Redditors at this point. Their emotional and physical disconnect from grounded reality is such that they have nothing to live for except ginning up failed nontroversy after nontroversy. I'm not even surprised at their extreme delusion in think that they can "re-educate" PewDiePie, as if they haven't alienated enough normies with their autistic screeching over Jontron. Risperdal shares must be off the stratosphere.

They must be LITERAL shaking from the realization that PDP is too big too fail via social justice.

Let's Play should never have been a money-printing operation in the first fucking place. We argued about this shit way back in oldest DHI, or the oldest DHI I can remember. You're showing 100% of a fucking game and you're putting ads on that and YOU expect that YOU should get all that money (minus youtube's cut) and the guys who made the entire game get nothing. Not a penny.

Because it's "transformative."

Meanwhile some NIGGER (kek, subject of today's analogy thanks to Spergling) who plays a minute of a rap album in their video of them driving down the street showing off their new rims could get their whole video muted because the music guys said "nah, you can't play any part of our song at all."

That's because you can't "play" a song like you can "play" a game, and the entire music industry is a primordial monstrosity that won't let anyone have fun if that fun doesn't involve them getting money.

You better believe that's the straw that all these moneyfags are grasping at. But there's nothing transformative about playing a game the same way every other fucker plays a game, and making the same lameass comments or jokes that every other retard would.

As for the Firewatch Dev, Kugel already said it. His claim to fame is he made a shitty game (verified 100%) and he thinks he should get to be part of the SJW gestapo in gaming because of that.

[Guest]

They already gave permission to stream Firewatch and profit from it.

From the Firewatch FAQ (archive.is):

Can I stream this game? Can I make money off of those streams?
Yes. We love that people stream and share their experiences in the game. You are free to monetize your videos as well.
It doesn't hurt to let us know on Twitter when you're live. We might show up in your chat!

[Just Some Random Guy]

When you start showing 100% of a product and you start making money yourself off the showing of said product in its entirety to others, then I think the waters get really muddy.

Whether Let's Plays are fair use or not is an unknown; anyone who tells you differently is wrong. Judges decide that, and they decide that after listening to cases. Lawyers can give opinions, but even they're ultimately making educated guesses. From what I've read from a few lawyers on the topic, they seem to think a Let's Player would probably win a fair use case.

It's not really true to say you show "100%" of the game in a Let's Play, though. Because functionally speaking, what a game is is the following: Music, visuals, and the code that puts them all together. If you're doing a Let's Play, you're distributing the music and sprites, but not the code which is what allows you to actually play the game, though it is a pseudo-distribution in that the playthrough of the game simulates the effects of the code. How does someone quantify how much of a game the code is? 10%? 50%? 80%? And to what degree can it be the playthrough be considered to simulate it? I don't really know, and that's an important point.

The second question, and one that is perhaps even more pertinent, is the effect on the original work's value; in other words, to what degree watching the derivative work can substitute for the original. An argument against many of the "reviewers" like the Nostalgia Critic being fair use is that, due to showing so much of the film and summarizing what happens, they remove any desire to watch the thing because you've already experienced it, by and large. How true is this for Let's Plays? How many people who might have bought the game watch and Let's Play and think "well, I've experienced the whole game, so no need to buy it and play it?" I expect it's less than what you'd find for Nostalgia Critic episodes.

These are questions that we don't really have definite answers to, and what a judge thinks the answers are after hearing the arguments would be what decides whether something is fair use or not. Also, whether it's commercial or not can make a difference; a noncommercial LP may be permitted but not a commercial LP.

Of course, another thing about fair use that is often ignored: Fair use is a defense you use in court. If you are not in court, in front of a judge, it really doesn't mean anything outside of making someone a lot less likely to pester you if they think they won't win if you use the fair use defense. What fair use entails is that someone sues you for copyright infringement, and you say "yes, I infringed copyright, but it's legal because it's fair use" and then you try to argue it being in fair use. Think of it like self defense. If someone attacks you and you injure or kill them in trying to protect yourself, your legal argument isn't that you didn't injure or kill them; your legal argument is "yes, I did in fact harm them, but I was doing it to protect myself and thus my actions were legal."

Of course, in this particular case, things get more complicated because the developers have stated on their site that you are allowed to stream and make a profit off of the video game. I'm not really sure what aspect of the law would be at work here (is this a case of promissory estoppel?), but whatever is the part of the law that's involved, it seems like you'd have significantly less of a case that a streamer making money off of your game was doing anything wrong when you said they could do it, even if you didn't say it to them personally.

This is one of those issues that has been "let lie." People assumed fair use would protect in all situations, no matter if someone was making their entire living off of playing 100% of someone else's intellectual property. It's hard to look at a DSP let's play and say that shit is 100% fair use to make his entire living off of. He does very little to "transform" the end product.

"Let lie" is very much a good way of putting it. With few exceptions (I think Nintendo might be the only one), companies are either in favor of or simply don't care about Let's Players. Perhaps the most important rule of copyright is that it doesn't matter how brazenly you break it as long as the copyright holder doesn't care enough to go after you, which has long been the case for LPs.

[rabidtictac]

An argument against many of the "reviewers" like the Nostalgia Critic being fair use is that, due to showing so much of the film and summarizing what happens, they remove any desire to watch the thing because you've already experienced it, by and large. How true is this for Let's Plays? How many people who might have bought the game watch and Let's Play and think "well, I've experienced the whole game, so no need to buy it and play it?" I expect it's less than what you'd find for Nostalgia Critic episodes.

I watched a complete Let's Play of Silent Hill 2 years ago. I never bought the game and never wanted to. If I want to experience the game again, I can go watch a let's play of it.

Not every game is like that, but some definitely are.