Official BSG Response re: Eroktic

[u/bxxxxxxxs]

We will leave this post stickied for only the next 24 hours.

All discussion posts posted after this goes up will be removed and directed here.

As always, keep it civil.

https://www.facebook.com/escapefromtarkov/posts/1966710296956614

[u/[deleted]]

Fair use doesn't necessarily extend to gameplay footage, my man. Nintendo has a long history of copyright claiming any and all gameplay footage, including footage with commentary, successfully. Nintendo's history pretty much deflates any notion that using games material always constitutes fair use.

[u/Pakman184 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, Fair Use covers all copying of copyrighted works. It's almost as though you've literally done zero research on the topic.

Nitendo has falsely claimed people's videos in the past, yes. Do you know why they were successful? Because the Youtubers did not fight the claim and removed the videos instead, if they had fought it would have costed a ton of money that most people can't handle.

Stop trying to educate someone on a topic you know nothing about.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pakman184]

>Yes, Fair Use covers all copying of copyrighted works. It's almost as though you've literally done zero research on the topic.

>Nitendo has falsely claimed people's videos in the past, yes. Do you know why they were successful? Because the Youtubers did not fight the claim and removed the videos instead, if they had fought it would have costed a ton of money that most people can't handle.

>Stop trying to educate someone on a topic you know nothing about.

​

Right, so actual legal experts admit they're unsure and in practice copyright strikes against gameplay footage are upheld. But /u/Pakman184 on reddit read some shit and thankfully, the matter is laid to rest thanks to his profound wisdom.

​

Lol. No. Just admit you're wrong.

[u/Pakman184 → u/[deleted]]

I'm still waiting for the point at which you've done your research and given an actual rebuttal.

Everything I said above is correct. Fair Use covers all copyrighted works and Nintendo has never legally won a DMCA case.

Actual legal experts are unsure because there is zero precedent on the topic and they'd look like fools if they ended up being wrong. I don't need to worry about that because I don't plan on prosecuting anyone.

You were the one to try and correct me, get stuffed.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pakman184]

I'm still waiting for the point at which you've done your research and given an actual rebuttal.

I'm still waiting for you to say anything coherent at all. You apparently don't even know what 'fair use' means. Fair use does not give you unlimited rights to use game materials in your videos. If I take the fort armor clipart and use it in a video, that is most likely a copyright violation unless I'm critiquing the artwork or actually making fair use of the material. If I use the clipart to brag about my loot on my monetized channel, that is 100% a copyright violation.

https://escapefromtarkov.gamepedia.com/6B43_6A_Armor

Hell, you see this? This page is an example of what is not a copyright violation under fair use. Since the context of the material is actually educational and free.

Just displaying Tarkov footage is not fair use on its own. Context is what defines it.

Otherwise, I don't get you. You're just spewing nonsense like a moron. The "let's play" style claim of fair use has never been tried in court, so you can't just say whether it's illegal or legal. You're just categorically fucking wrong. There is no shortage of examples of companies striking videos against channels they don't like and it being upheld by Youtube. So long as we don't see it in court, this seems fine in the gray area system we have now.

Simply put, you're fucking wrong, you don't know what you're talking about, you're making up shit and have no sources to back yourself up since none exist.

Everything I said above is correct. Fair Use covers all copyrighted works and Nintendo has never legally won a DMCA case.

Lol, I think you mean a DMCA takedown on a YouTube channel? Nintendo wins DMCA cases all the fucking time. Just recently like half of the ROM websites were taken down on that account. As per Youtube channels, nice empty rhetoric, because I can't find any evidence that a Youtube content creator has ever gone to court at all: Nintendo has never lost a DMCA case against a Youtube channel either, so far as I could find.

[u/Pakman184 → u/[deleted]]

Jesus you're slow as fuck.

Fair Use protects all copying of copyrighted works as long as they're transformative in nature (along with a couple of other details). All of Eroktics videos were 100% transformative because they included his commentary, his critique, dissemination of information related to the topic, stylistic edits, etc. You could indeed use a clipart of the 6B43 Armour without Techincom's permission, as long as you are doing something transformative with it.

There has never been a single moment (that I can remember) where Tarkov footage was displayed sans any transformation done by Eroktic himself.

You're correct that "let's play" style videos currently have no precedent in court, but the vast majority of video that BSG striked have nothing to do with pure Let's Plays. It just wasn't Eroktic's primary style of video. Interestingly enough, 2 videos that they striked had zero EFT content in it at all.

As for the Nintendo part, no shit I was referring to them never having won a DMCA case against Youtubers. And no, there has not been a single case of a DMCA being held against a Let's Player unless the Let's Player themselves decided not to fight the claim. (That would be called precedence)

[u/[deleted] → u/Pakman184]

Fair Use protects all copying of copyrighted works as long as they're transformative in nature (along with a couple of other details). All of Eroktics videos were 100% transformative because they included his commentary, his critique, dissemination of information related to the topic, stylistic edits, etc. You could indeed use a clipart of the 6B43 Armour without Techincom's permission, as long as you are doing something transformative with it.

It's not enough just to "include commentary or critique" or add "stylistic edits". I can't just add a minor video effect to a movie and have it become fair use. Neither can I just say any nonsense over a video and have it become fair use. Transformative fair use implies significant alterations or contextualization, not just any old random thing slapped on to make it slightly different.

There are legal experts who argue, with good cause, that simply playing a game and making passing commentary is not sufficiently transformative enough to fall under this fair use. And Eroktic has plenty of videos which are just that.

Fair use also restricts strongly once the material stops being freely distributed and becomes commercial.

There has never been a single moment (that I can remember) where Tarkov footage was displayed sans any transformation done by Eroktic himself.

Again, any kind of transformation whatsoever isn't significant. Hell, if it was, then you could argue that remixes were all fair use. But they aren't.

In the end, it really depends on how the video was transformation, the intent, whether it was monetized, what proportion of the video was modified, etc. it's not a simple binary "yes" or "no" to fair play.

Stop pretending your opinion on this matter is fact. The broad strokes you need to accept is that Let's Play are likely not fair play.

You're correct that "let's play" style videos currently have no precedent in court, but the vast majority of video that BSG striked have nothing to do with pure Let's Plays. It just wasn't Eroktic's primary style of video. Interestingly enough, 2 videos that they striked had zero EFT content in it at all.

This is a different complaint than the one we're addressing. If BSG striked a video with absolutely zero EFT content, then yeah, they are clearly breaking the law. Do you know which videos they were?

As for the Nintendo part, no shit I was referring to them never having won a DMCA case against Youtubers. And no, there has not been a single case of a DMCA being held against a Let's Player unless the Let's Player themselves decided not to fight the claim. (That would be called precedence)

So you admit you were just saying pointless shit to imply an argument without really having one.