Groucho

Long story short...TotalBiscuit, a video game reviewer on YouTube, posted an unfavorable review of a new game called Day One: Gary's Incident. The developer's response? File a copyright violation with YouTube in order to get the video taken down.

Kotaku article:

http://kotaku.com/studio-accused-of-...ism-1448796126

Here's TotalBiscuit's take on the situation:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QfgoDDh4kE0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Let's hope this isn't the start of a horrific new trend.

superdeluxe

Looks like the developer has removed the complaint

chuckd21

If he was monetizing his video of their content, they have every right to file a complaint. Almost all rights complaints on YouTube now are over ad usage, and not the content itself. Also, it's almost always automated. If you file an appeal, the complaint is put on hold until the matter is resolved.

Long story short, TB is probably being a drama queen because it rallies the troops and earns more views.

Hokeyboy

Except of course for all those positive review videos for the game, which are also monetizing the video of said content. No complaints filed there.

Groucho

That's what video game critics do...they monetize reviews. This isn't a new or shocking thing. It's like Paramount demanding that "Siskel and Ebert" pull a show because they gave it two thumbs down.

Michael Corvin

TB... Total Bitches... amirite? Hello?

chuckd21

How are you able to see who is monetizing the positive reviews?

chuckd21

And rights holders have every right to say "No, you can't make money off our content". Fair use does not cover making money.

chuckd21

That's a weird comparison, and not just because they're both dead and that show hasn't been on in 20 years. Those clips are licensed.

Adam Tyner

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but isn't this different than the "let's play" videos that are usually attacked by publishers? Those aren't offering any criticism, but this is, which should put it in a different class. Plus, Wild Game sent him a code specifically so that he could put together a review. His platform for reviewing is YouTube. Why would they be astonished that he's reviewing their game on YouTube (incorporating screenshots/video) when they sought him out to do a review and is doing things they way he's always done them?

This isn't about ad monetization. This is about a petty developer who didn't get a review they liked, so they're abusing the system to try to control the conversation. If he'd recorded the glowing response that Wild Game was hoping to get from a fairly high profile reviewer, absolutely nothing would've happened.

Groucho

Not sure if you watched the video in the embed, but the developers gave TotalBiscuit permission to make the video ahead of time, and provided him with a review code.

chuckd21

How do you know it's not about ad monetization? They said it was. All he said was that they had it removed. Well, a lot of people get hit with notice that they can't monetize a video. And they react just like this.

I haven't watched TB's video or remotely give a shit about it by the way. Just giving additional insight about how things actually work on YouTube as someone who deals with fair use and copyright on a daily basis there.

chuckd21

Did they give him permission to "sell" his review? Ad revenue is not included as part of a casual exchange such as that. Make your review. Post your review. But you probably can't monetize it. They get the ad placement, not you. Your opinion isn't being silenced.

Adam Tyner

Why would they approach the guy about putting together a video on his YouTube channel, which has ads and stuff, if they didn't want him to put together a video on his YouTube channel, which has ads and stuff?

They're deleting every single negative topic/comment from their Steam page. They're taking down negative YouTube videos. They said it's about ad monetization, but actions speak louder than words.

I'm not even saying that they're legally in the wrong here. I'm sure they have every right to do what they're doing. They're being petty, repulsive assholes about it, though, and the ad monetization bit is very clearly a smokescreen for their true intentions.

Draven

When it comes to journalism, this is not always the case. Working in TV, I've sat through many meetings with our lawyers talking about this very topic.

Because TV stations are making money too. If a new movie has a huge record-breaking opening and we use a clip from the trailer in our story, the movie company can't make us take it down just because we are making money from our sponsors during that broadcast. One could make a similar argument about game reviews.

Michael Corvin

How is this any different than IGN or Gamespot reviewing games? The sites are ad based and generate revenue. Reviews are a big reason why those sites draw traffic. Only difference is one is text/image based and the other is a video.

chuckd21

I've worked in TV and have dealt with this too. If this guy worked for Good Morning America, reviewed that game, they posted it online and then this happened, that would be an appropriate comparison.

Groucho

What's hilarious is that due to the "Streisand Effect" far more people are learning about what a shitty game this is than ever would have had they just let the negative review stand.

superdeluxe

Did you watch the response video? They essentially gave consent when they sent TB a review code to review the game and create content based on that review.

Hokeyboy

I'm pretty sure chuck didn't watch the response video.

chuckd21

I don't have to watch the response video. What you said is not how it works. Make a video all you want. Making money via ads off said video is not implied in such an arrangement.

Adam Tyner

I just don't get how this is defensible. A company goes to a guy with a popular, for-profit YouTube channel and gives him a review code. The goal is for him to post a review on his popular, for-profit YouTube channel. They then claim to be incensed that he posted a review on his popular, for-profit YouTube channel. If they don't want a review on his for-profit YouTube channel, why did they enlist him to create a review for his for-profit YouTube channel?

chuckd21

My channel has ads all over it. The bulk of them are a result of the rights holders putting them there. There's no way for an outsider to see who the ads belong to. A popular channel with ads isn't indicative of anything.

I'm not defending this company if they, in fact, abused the YouTube copyright system to have a negative ad removed entirely. I'm simply stating that these things are usually not as black and white as all the immediate kneejerk reactions that come at the start of these things, and am giving perspective as a neutral third party as to what could have actually happened.

I mean, for fuck's sake, the first thing TB started crying about when this happened was that they were taking food from his family.

Adam Tyner

Wild Games' argument isn't about the content of the ads; it's about the existence of the ads, period.

chuckd21

What they said in what you just posted is exactly what I'm talking about. Who said anything about ad content?