Audiophile
Member
By the logic of some people in here it should be illegal for anyone in the US for eg. to discuss the information Chelsea Manning leaked.
Naughty Dog/Sony copy striking negative critiques of TLOU2 leaked videos (No spoilers)
- Thread starter Yoda
- Start date
blackjon24
Member
Loved the original and hope the sequel is good. The leak discussions are fine as long as people aren't going out of their way to spoil people excited for it, which they are.
Even if last of us part 2 turns out disappointing Sony still obliterated the competion this gen, so tearing down an incomplete leaked game does not make the other consoles look better
Even if last of us part 2 turns out disappointing Sony still obliterated the competion this gen, so tearing down an incomplete leaked game does not make the other consoles look better
Last edited:
Hissing Sid
Member
Great Hair
Banned
Woopsie!
Jigsaah
Gold Member
Incorrect. Naughty Dog is misusing copyright striking. It is a huge problem with YT and there are companies who literally profit from finding videos like this and issuing these strikes. The system favors the plaintiff in this situation much like people who lose their career because of women who come forth describing sexual abuse from decades ago. The defendant is automatically stigmatized even if, in reality, the accusation is baseless. Likewise, these youtube creators lose any initial revenue until they can properly dispute the strike. By time the strike has been resolved as baseless the the bulk of the views the creator would have received have already happened and its revenue they will never recoup.
It's unfortunate that this has happened this way. I don't want to see the leaks as I plan to buy and play TLOU2 anyways and have my own opinion. Because it's opinion, you can't even really sue for slander unless there are things that are simply untrue that the youtuber is describing in the video. They are likely not under NDA or embargo either so this is just a net loss for Naughty Dog. They should not get to ruin someone else's income for giving an opinion because their content leaked.
Dodkrake
Banned
Let me understand this:
- very incomplete leaks come out
- every single reviewer either a) has not played the game or b) cannot disclose their review due to NDA
- YouTubers review the game based on incomplete very incomplete information / an illegal leak
- surprised Pikachu face because ND is requesting the videos to be taken down
From a business perspective, it makes total sense that ND requests videos to be removed. So called YouTubers are formulating an opinion that has the potential to damage a brand based on FUD and a few out of context leaks that do not reflect the whole story.
And I would say the same if this was Halo, Forza or Cyberpunk.
- very incomplete leaks come out
- every single reviewer either a) has not played the game or b) cannot disclose their review due to NDA
- YouTubers review the game based on incomplete very incomplete information / an illegal leak
- surprised Pikachu face because ND is requesting the videos to be taken down
From a business perspective, it makes total sense that ND requests videos to be removed. So called YouTubers are formulating an opinion that has the potential to damage a brand based on FUD and a few out of context leaks that do not reflect the whole story.
And I would say the same if this was Halo, Forza or Cyberpunk.
MagnesG
Banned
And so abusing the copyright protection? The info is pretty much public now, the footage.
Would very much want this to blew up on their face, maybe by mass donating legal fees to the ones affected, the story itself produced when all is done would be more damaging that what they hope for.
No one is reviewing the game
Dodkrake
Banned
Where are you from? Honest question. The reason is that you are applying a blanket statement over "copyright protection" without considering that different countries have different copyright laws.
Also, and I'm not versed in legal shenanigans, but the copyright claim in YouTube is pretty broad and does not exclusively include "use of images / sounds".
The info being illegality public does not mean that it's not under copyright as well.
Dodkrake
Banned
So, saying game X is bad because Y is not a review? I think you should take a look into the merrian-webster definition of Review:
Definition of REVIEW
a formal military inspection; a military ceremony honoring a person or an event; revision… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
Saying you don't like the plot of a game is not a review, and it's irrelevant to whether or not Sony is abusing the system to enforce copyright.So, saying game X is bad because Y is not a review? I think you should take a look into the merrian-webster definition of Review:
Definition of REVIEW
a formal military inspection; a military ceremony honoring a person or an event; revision… See the full definition
1. Name the countries whether the law forbids you to talk about a unreleased product.
2. You can't put a copyright protection over talking about the existence of a thing.
3. YouTube is under American jurisdiction, and therefore videos here fall under our definition of "fair use"
MagnesG
Banned
We're talking about copyright claims in Youtube as a platform so does it matter where I'm from when there's literally a guideline process from them?
From Youtube.
We had videos for example being taken down just for discussing the leaks, does words (not songs etc.) being spoken now can be counted copyright infringements?
Dodkrake
Banned
Oh god.
Saying you don't like a product and state why it is you don't is, in itself, a review.
1. I don't need to name countries. Your assertion is that this is not an infringement of copyright, therefore the onus is on you to prove that, not me.
2. Correct, but fair use is in itself different for unreleased materials, even in the US.
Fair Use: When Copyrighted Material Can Be Used Without Permission
In some situations, you may make limited use of another's copyrighted work without asking permission or infringing on the original copyright.
www.nolo.com
Not stating this is not fair use, but stating there the legal ramifications are quite different.
3. Youtube is under the jurisdiction it operates on. YouTube in the EU is under EU's jurisdiction and should comply with directives and regulations. Big example? GDPR. YouTube needs to comply with it In order to operate in the EU. Quick example showing how wrong you are.
Dodkrake
Banned
I've addressed in my previous comment.
MagnesG
Banned
And the answer is no. A discussion, a review is not infringing anything when there's no said copyright material. Even if there is (BIG IF), using the copyright protections to fend off negative and uncontrolled discussion (from their perspective) is literally what Nintendo had done in the past and they've already got shit for it.
This loophole had been practiced for years now because they never have to settle the claim, they just had let the videos sit there, months, or years waiting for review. Youtubers who go live often would get fucked because of this, they can't go live when there's a copyright dispute in queue.
Last edited:
Dodkrake
Banned
And I'm not saying they are wrong or right. I don't agree with reviewing and spewing BS based on leaks (incomplete) and I'm also not claiming, like some are, this is not a copyright infringement. Again, this may depend on jurisdiction / country and is a very big blanket statement for something that is way more nuanced.
Just out of curiosity, what Nintendo project caused a shitshow based on leaks? Not aware, but I haven't kept up with the news.
MagnesG
Banned
Yes, but that doesn't make it justifiable to abuse the copyright protection, that's a big fuck you to the Youtube media.
Pokemon leaks, Animal Crossing etc fiasco do exists. Though Nintendo would only copystrike claim when there's a clear copyrighted material being used - footage and images, and not limited to only Youtube, it's the whole internet that got censored.
Still, leaks discussion without any copyrighted material is still a-ok as far as I'm aware. Censoring words is a bit too much.
But that's not what I'm saying in my previous post, it is just that there had been a time when they would copystrike claim (grey area around hacks and emulation), take down or demonetize videos for example of people reviewing their games if they're not being included in their Nintendo Youtube Partner Program, which sucks hard btw. But that's all in the past.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
It isn't relevant if some 3rd world country claims stating opinions about illegally leaked but now publicly available content is copyright infringement.
Naughty Dog and YouTube are both American companies therefore the claim of copyright infringement would fall under U.S. jurisdiction. Assuming the claims by the YouTubers are true and they are only giving their opinions and/or NOT reproducing beyond 'Fair Use' the the stolen content, these strikes do not fall under copyright infringement and are perfectly legal in the U.S.
The only violation of copyright infringement would be by those that illegally obtained and published the leaks in addition to crimes they could be charged with for stealing the information. If any YouTubers are publishing the leaks beyond 'Fair Use' they would also be guilty of copyright infringement.
Last edited:
Dodkrake
Banned
So, you start with ad hominem (great job) and then completely ignore what I said about jurisdictions. And YouTube being an American company or not is irrelevant, since it needs to comply with local regulations on other countries, like where I am (Ireland).
What I mean is, a copyright may not be constructed as the same between both countries, and edge cases can reveal that X in the US is not X in Ireland.
That said, I'm not arguing against this being copyright abuse, I'm merely stating that throwing blanket statements over "it's US therefore it's everywhere" is wrong and pure misinformation.
Also reported your comment.
Jayjayhd34
Gold Member
Last edited:
Dodkrake
Banned
Xenophobic remarks have no place in an otherwise healthy discussion. Nobody cares about Napoleonic complexes of faux superiority
I'll also close my participation in this thread.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
TriSuit666
Banned
- incomplete leaks, yes - but streamed gameplay using a several developer builds - which then go on to line up with a spoiler filled post posted several months ago.
- how would you know if youtubers who've signed the NDA had or had not played the game? They are under NDA, whereas the people discussing the legitmate news angle are not. QED.
- No, YouTubers did not 'review' the game - they speculated (legitimately) on what might be happening from the available information, adding in additional information from the lead dev himself, and offering their own opinion along the way.
- They weren't 'requested', the videos were forcibly removed by way of legal intervention to YouTube by a third party company believed to have been instructed by Sony and Naughty Dog.
I mean, if you're going to misrepresent the facts, please at least do your homework first.
Last edited:
zeorhymer
Member
Please do because "Xenophobic remarks have no place in an otherwise healthy discussion. Nobody cares about Napoleonic complexes of faux superiority." This is every IDPol/Leftist tactic is to either pull the victim cards or shut down the conversation by running away.
Your initial premise is so far off you might as well have not commented. Thanks for the attempted gaslighting/astroturfing.
Dodkrake
Banned
Yes, now I'm a leftist astroturfer. It's like nobody actually read what I wroteu. Anyway, the reason for leaving the conversation, which was healthy:
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
See you
manfestival
Member
Your problem is how deep in semantics you are going in order to "not be wrong."
I get what you are saying but I disagree with your points.
Also he called out your tactics. Which is his correct about. You just took it further by assuming that he called you a leftist. Now you use this to dismiss him(another of these tactics) by calling him an idiot. You are focusing on one aspect while ignoring the points that are being actually made. This seems to be a trend with your posts in all of your responses to people and it is just simply... idiotic.
Jayjayhd34
Gold Member
Well getting this thread back on topic.
the videos that have been removed and user who have put in a claim to have decision looked at have now received there email from youtube stating they will have there video reinstated unless the company working on sonys behalf take court action.
So yeah those who leave the strike on there where obviously doing something wrong so this will show how many where really in breach.
the videos that have been removed and user who have put in a claim to have decision looked at have now received there email from youtube stating they will have there video reinstated unless the company working on sonys behalf take court action.
So yeah those who leave the strike on there where obviously doing something wrong so this will show how many where really in breach.
Last edited:
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Nice. So I guess that clarifies the strikes were bs.
Jayjayhd34
Gold Member
Well you'd have to pretty bold to risk a court case against a multi billion dollar corporation so if you do challenge its unlikely you did anything wrong.
This isn't say every single takedown was fales as I've only seen one youtube with the email so it's interesting that some of the ones claiming they had fales dmcas haven't yet come forward you'd expect them to be making big thing out of winning against Sony.
Last edited:
Bladed Thesis
Member
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Anyone that was simply discussing, or describing the leaks, giving their opinions of them and/or the game itself should have their videos reinstated, but if any of the YTers were showing actual footage of the leaks they should have been taken down and should not restored.
It will be interesting to see how many other videos if any get restored.
Yoda
Member
Laws outside the U.S. aren't relevant to punitive claims made against businesses (the content creators) in the U.S. Regardless of where the claim is coming from, it's an action against the content creators in the U.S. for what I described in the OP and those are the laws they're solely subject to WRT to copyright claims. If there are laws against not showing content which wasn't intended for public release by a private company, that'd fall under censorship of that region and thus not remove the video for U.S. viewers via a copyright claim. HOWEVER that's not even relevant here because these videos being taken down DO NOT SHOW THE LEAKS, merely state an opinion on a game based off of new articles. Sony/ND/Their PR subsidiary are abusing the copyright system to control bad PR which they believe will impact sales.
Halo is Back
Member
Its not a review because no one has even played the game. People are simply voicing their opinions for the information that is out, which is well in their right to do so.So, saying game X is bad because Y is not a review? I think you should take a look into the merrian-webster definition of Review:
Definition of REVIEW
a formal military inspection; a military ceremony honoring a person or an event; revision… See the full definition
Azurro
Banned
You know? It's kind of funny, we have had international media weigh in on Edward Snowden's revelations for years, the same thing with the Panama Papers, Chelsea Manning, Wikileaks and so on. We have hours of pundits, commentators, people in forums giving out their opinions and discussing the information in detail for many years.
But now because some silly super woke game got leaked and now suddenly discussing leaked information is a crime. Please.
I think people are just upset that others got the information ahead of time and couldn't be tricked into playing as Naught Dog's shitty...ahem..."diverse" character.
But now because some silly super woke game got leaked and now suddenly discussing leaked information is a crime. Please.
I think people are just upset that others got the information ahead of time and couldn't be tricked into playing as Naught Dog's shitty...ahem..."diverse" character.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Nobody is reviewing the game and giving it a score.
If I make a video just talking about some news, I can do that. I did not signed NDA, stole footage or anything.
I understand that the game/plot it their intellectual property but at the same time, youtubers are just talking about stuff they heard.
The Mad Draklor
Member
Mr. H and Heelvsbabyface had their copyright strikes removed. So it's pretty much confirmed that Sony and Naughty Dog are aware that what they are doing is illegal.
StreetsofBeige
Member
My meme taken down is back too. But checking my Imgur image/gallery library, I still don't see it as something I can edit. And it's not hidden either. So Imgur is allowing it, but not letting me control it. And it doesn't show up in searches.
Oh well. Better than nothing.
Last edited:
The Mad Draklor
Member
It might still be under a copyright claim which is different from a copyright strike.
Want to hear a funny story? Naughty Dog decided to take down the Senator Armstrong meme, but someone notified Konami about it. It may lead into one of those content deadlock situations similar to what Jim Sterling would do sometimes.
Grinchy
Banned
lol I got an email from imgur about 3 images being DMCA'd from my imgur account
I was very confused until I discovered that they were just 3 screengrabs I took of TLOU2 leaks. I linked them in the spoiler thread and have seen them used by other people here and there. Sony took down my random ass images
I was very confused until I discovered that they were just 3 screengrabs I took of TLOU2 leaks. I linked them in the spoiler thread and have seen them used by other people here and there. Sony took down my random ass images
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
LOL this fat wanker thinking that anyone at ND gives a shit about him and his channel! Muso (formerly Muso TNT) is an independent company specializing in copyright infringement and This is their website. A quick look shows SIE as just one of their clients.
Being a UK based company they were likely working autonomously, I certainly doubt Neil Druckmann was making constant transatlantic phone-calls to ensure every neckbeard was being slapped down appropriately for saying bad things about him and his work on YT .
All of which makes mr heel/babyface/whoevers snide dig about Neil's video seem pathetically petty and delusionally self-important.
And people wonder why I have no sympathy for some of these Youtubers... Yeesh.
The Mad Draklor
Member
Wow, you're really upset that the false copyright strikes were removed, proving the point that they were done illegally. And lmao at "SIE as just one of their clients" as if that's insignificant. Muso acts in accordance of what SIE asks for. What SIE asked for, by extension, was illegal according to copyright and DMCA law. But sure, keep defending illegal activity...
D.Final
Banned
lol I got an email from imgur about 3 images being DMCA'd from my imgur account
I was very confused until I discovered that they were just 3 screengrabs I took of TLOU2 leaks. I linked them in the spoiler thread and have seen them used by other people here and there. Sony took down my random ass images
Sony ninja strikes again
Similar threads
- Locked