Day One: Garry's Incident > Discussioni generali > Dettagli della discussione
Commodore Dannerson 20 ott 2013, ore 5:30
Question
to the devs and in response to previously posted comment by the developer, "We protected our copyright because Total Biscuit has no right to make advertising revenues with our license".

If you didnt want people like TB making money of off this why did you send a youtuber a review code?
Visualizzazione di 1-15 commenti su 29
< >
venn177 20 ott 2013, ore 5:33 
The issue is that you can turn ad revenue "on" and "off" on any given video on Youtube, and they're using that as their reason for taking it down.

Not saying I agree at all, but that's the actual reason they're going to use: They didn't "know" he was going to make money off of tearing the game a new ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.
Commodore Dannerson 20 ott 2013, ore 5:34 
hes a proffesional youtuber, they make their living from monotizing videos, it would be pretty niave to think they wouldnt monotize it unless specifically asked to.
Arvuti (Bandito) 20 ott 2013, ore 5:36 
Kotaku is also getting ad revenue from their video of day one. They are obviously just trying to get rid of negative feedback, can't say I blame them but this will just make things worse.
venn177 20 ott 2013, ore 5:37 
Messaggio originale di Commander Methos:
hes a proffesional youtuber, they make their living from monotizing videos, it would be pretty niave to think they wouldnt monotize it unless specifically asked to.

Oh, obviously. That's just the only "in" they have to getting the video taken down.
The Wiz@rd  [sviluppatore] 20 ott 2013, ore 5:37 
It's simple, all the Youtube channel works like this. We give a key of our game and people can evaluate it. But if the Youtuve channel want to make advertising revenues, must obtain authorization from the licensee.
Devil 2 U 20 ott 2013, ore 5:38 
Yea, why send code for the review? Two possible outcomes of a review are either positive or negative. 100% positive review is not guaranteed.
Arvuti (Bandito) 20 ott 2013, ore 5:39 
Would you really expect someone who makes videos for a living not to turn on ad revenue for his video ? This video had been up for almost a month now, why suddenly send out a copyright claim ?
venn177 20 ott 2013, ore 5:39 
Messaggio originale di Stephane:
It's simple, all the Youtube channel works like this. We give a key of our game and people can evaluate it. But if the Youtuve channel want to make advertising revenues, must obtain authorization from the licensee.
So were you just naive to the fact that TotalBiscuit makes all of his money on Youtube and monetizes? Because if not, you could've said "we're not allowing you to monetize it."
onecoldnight 20 ott 2013, ore 5:40 
Wouldn't Polaris/Maker Studios have that authorisation covered?
venn177 20 ott 2013, ore 5:42 
Messaggio originale di onecoldnight:
Wouldn't Polaris/Maker Studios have that authorisation covered?
They have their deals with all the big studios, but something this small that's essentially "self-published" is its own entity in those regards.
Ayuno 20 ott 2013, ore 5:42 
Sry Sir. but do you really thought your game is a masterpiece or something like that?. Do you know what review means?
dubesor 20 ott 2013, ore 5:42 
guys the monetization reason is BS. the devs knew who they give review copies to and ofc they know TB. TB monetizes all of his videos, it's his JOB, his PROFESSION. I bet the devs didn't pay Total Biscuit to make a review, right? So how does someone survive if he doesn't get paid for his job? Oh right, because youtube, or rather Polaris pays him.

He didn't make money of their copyrighted material. Everyone who watched the video watched it solely for Total Biscuits input. His review, his analyses of the game. Not for your ♥♥♥♥ty game which was only running in the background for the purpose of review.

Lame excuse and I bet youtube will side with TB after a review.
Commodore Dannerson 20 ott 2013, ore 5:43 
wtf is a critique and falls under fair use doctorine, which imposes limits on the copyright holder in regards to reviews/critique etc.

i think, still reading.
onecoldnight 20 ott 2013, ore 5:43 
Messaggio originale di venn177@branchingdialogue.net:
Messaggio originale di onecoldnight:
Wouldn't Polaris/Maker Studios have that authorisation covered?
They have their deals with all the big studios, but something this small that's essentially "self-published" is its own entity in those regards.

Ah right
Visualizzazione di 1-15 commenti su 29
< >
Per pagina: 15 30 50
Data di pubblicazione: 20 ott 2013, ore 5:30
Messaggi: 29