Gaming Copyright

This is especially interesting, because very strict restrictions on streaming and recording in the PS4 version of Persona 5 are even enforced through the system itself. The justifications put forth by Atlus are particularly noteworthy: their main aim is to prevent spoilers about the later parts of the game from leaking out. Obviously, they believe that if people know what happens in the game’s narrative, they will not buy the game (this may be shrouded in talk about protecting people from getting the game ruined for them, but obviously, if you are watching a Persona 5 stream, you are willing to have it spoiled for you). This is just another example of Japanese game developers being particularly keen on limiting what people can show on video. Obviously, this won’t stop spoilers from getting out, people can simply talk about the game, but it does severely limit what players can do when it comes to sharing their experience in video form. So the debate about copyright and gameplay videos continues.

Eirik Evert Elias Jungar on the balance between copyright and freedom of speech in the most recent issue of the Press Start journal.

To be expected, but also very unfortunate. Another example of how copyright does not actually foster the flourishing of cultures. I wonder if there will ever be a case where the creators of such a fan game are willing to try to argue that their remake is fair use. I have been arguing forever that the whole system is stacked against such an argument ever seeing the light of day, though.

Critical Distance, a fantastic site of curation and discussion of games writing, is currently holding a fundraiser and their next goal would allow them to do a regular curation column for Let’s Plays. With the countless hours of Let’s Plays being uploaded to YouTube and the like every day, a service like this is invaluable. Please think about pledging to their Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/critdistance

As absurd as the situation is, we should probably be even more troubled that we still need to fight to #savethelink. Politicians, the institutions, and , in the end, the law has trouble catching on to the second-to-last technological innovation, how could they anticipate things that are just around the corner. More interestingly, I think this also shows that we still need to have deeper discussions about our values when it comes to copyright (esp. if we want a European copyright law). It is not as easy to answer these questions, as it is to form an opinion in these absurd cases.

This is just ridiculous. It has everything a good marketing disaster needs: Streisand effect (the mod is back in the news), pointlessness (there are dozens of videos), minimal effect (who was going to think less of Samsung because they saw these videos, anyway?), and bad publicity (Samsung looks petty, as if they cannot take a joke, and are shown to be willing to misuse any rules they can, if they think it could benefit them even a tiny bit).

Not directly related to video games, but I wrote a thing about Pepe the Frog, politics, and authorship.

A longer article by Greg Lastowka, this time on the history of copyright law and the legal system trying to grapple with the issues that interactivity in video games pose to the legal (and maybe even moral/cultural/social) conception of authorship. Well worth a read, if you are interested in digging a bit deeper. Orginally in the SAGE Handbook of Intellectual Property (2014).

This article by Greg Lastowka is from 2012, but it is still very relevant. The success of Minecraft (and of videos of Minecraft) brought out all of the, previously mostly theoretical, problems that copyright law faces, when it is applied to video games. It is very disheartening to look back at the changes Mojang has made to their Terms of Service over time, and especially now under the ownership of Microsoft. The latest limitation, disallowing “advertising” (whatever that can mean specifically) in “their game,” is just the most glaring example showing that they no longer follow the approach Lastowka outlines and praises here.

The title may be an exaggeration (a pretty big one), but it is very cool to see people come together like this. It’s still ridiculous that this is necessary. Fair use might be an “affirmative defense” technically, but that makes it too easily disregarded by rights holders. A fund that would allow people to insist on their right might be a short-term solution (given that the fund reaches a size that would actually help in a significant number of cases), but we should not be satisfied with this patch.

A great way of highlighting how ridiculous the ContentID system can be. It’s also pretty funny.

Unsurprising anecdote about the power traditional media companies still hold.

Very interesting read. I have argued for a while, that let’s plays of the entirety these kind of games (with what I call “closed” game systems) cannot be fair use. I have seen some discussion about this, but I don’t think there is a widespread feeling that these walkthrough videos are unfair to the creators of such narrative-focused games.

Unfortunately, I think this changes less than it seems. Still, it’s good to see Google pay some lip service to fair use protections. It still does not solve the fundamental problems of ContentID.

This was bound to happen. Nintendo is well-known to be very protective and willing to take unpopular actions against streamers, youtubers etc. And Mojang is known for a very different attitude. Haven’t read anything about this being resolved, yet. I guess that’s not going to draw as many headlines.

While I think that this is certainly good policy, I don’t agree that copyright is a good way of arguing that Mojang has this power. It does show that they are now more open to using this tool to control what players can and cannot do in Minecraft.