LogFAQs > #972722610

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, Database 11 ( 12.2022-11.2023 ), DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	it's so confusing to me that nintendo dmca's a large portion of creators who
adjl 04/08/23 8:53:51 PM #19:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I think having it is causing more problems. That would be because you only hear about the fringe cases of copyright laws being abused. The fundamental concept is fine, and is in fact pretty much necessary for creatives to be commercially successful at all. In the vast majority of cases, things work as intended and you don't hear anything about them because reporting on the status quo is boring. To abolish the concept because of a few fringe cases of abuse would make no sense at all. jsb0714 posted... What is with the idiotic thinking that companies shouldn't protect or be able to protect their IPs? Just because YouTube exists it should be a free-for-all? That's just fucking stupid. Protecting IP's is fair game, but exerting absolute control over who is and isn't allowed to even display footage from a game is pretty dubious. For one thing, that's exactly what the concept of "fair use" is meant to protect, but more than that, there's little to no benefit and often quite a bit of harm to be found by doing so. It's not the end of the world if that happens, since it's not like there aren't plenty of other companies that are perfectly happy having streamers cover their games to keep that industry afloat, but it's still just a bizarre stance to take and not really a good look overall. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:972722610] in it's so co... [t:80405932]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite><quote>I think having it is causing more problems.</quote>That would be because you only hear about the fringe cases of copyright laws being abused. The fundamental concept is fine, and is in fact pretty much necessary for creatives to be commercially successful at all. In the vast majority of cases, things work as intended and you don't hear anything about them because reporting on the status quo is boring. To abolish the concept because of a few fringe cases of abuse would make no sense at all.jsb0714 posted... </cite><quote>What is with the idiotic thinking that companies shouldn't protect or be able to protect their IPs? Just because YouTube exists it should be a free-for-all? That's just fucking stupid.</quote>Protecting IP's is fair game, but exerting absolute control over who is and isn't allowed to even display footage from a game is pretty dubious. For one thing, that's exactly what the concept of "fair use" is meant to protect, but more than that, there's little to no benefit and often quite a bit of harm to be found by doing so. It's not the end of the world if that happens, since it's not like there aren't plenty of other companies that are perfectly happy having streamers cover their games to keep that industry afloat, but it's still just a bizarre stance to take and not really a good look overall. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1