/vt/ - Virtual Youtubers

>>68708989
>nip devs being nip devs
That's not a "nip dev" thing, Pewdiepie ate a strike
>AFTER THE FACT
for a game he actually had permission to play because permissions granted through altering the homepage of a site can be revoked by altering the homepage of the same site.

This could be the ultimate coup
>Anon makes "dino gura" Palworld mode
>Dev gives permission through a superchat
>Gura plays it three times
>Dev says "sike" through a superchat, copyright strikes the three VODs
>Youtube accepts, permanently deletes Gura channel

>>65611315
>spoiler: no mod maker would care whether they are midgets or 50k corpos
Anon, it is not about what happens, it is about what COULD happen.
>pic related
All it takes is one (1) person with an axe to grind. Think about it
>Fubuki, Mio and Haachama streams three times each with some mod
>mod maker is a HUGE niji fan, throw three copyright strikes for each channel on account of his mod being used
>Youtube accepts said strikes
BAM! Fubuki, Mio and Haachama channels are gone for good OR Cover would have to see a day in court to try to settle the whole thing, in 2026, when the courts decide to listen to the case.

Best part? It would be a
>MASSIVE FOREIGN CORPORATION CHALLENGE HUMBLE SMALL MOD MAKER IN COURT FOR THE RIGHTS TO USE HIS MOD WITHOUT PERMISSION
case, and not a "fair use" case.

The stakes are much higher when you have something to lose and Cover has a lot to lose.

>>28154858
>That's the difference.
It’s no difference. Not only western streamers can get in trouble for playing games without permission some can get in trouble for playing games WITH permission if the dev retroactively removes permission, like it happened to Pewds.

Vshojo in particular uses the same strat Cover and Anycolor did up until the holocaust
>these are not our employees, they’re merely independent contractors covered through the “indie” blanket permission
reason for which kson is so adamant in calling herself “still an indie”.

Capcom response to that was to give Mio two strikes and tell Cover
>if you don’t want this independent contractors to lose her YouTube account and all of her suspiciously associated contractors too come to the negotiations table

>>18864029
>then just unarchived & unmonetized lol
Unarchive and unmonetize won't save from strikes

>>17894962
>Difference is Youtube's algorithm won't automatically strike you for playing random games in a privated video
>Copyright strikes for games are usually done manually by copyright trolls or the game dev's lawyers, and they obviously can't do anything if the video is no longer visible.
Yes they can, and they did just that to Pewds.
(continues)

>>16399556
>Send an email to Cover about it
Anon, asking for permission is to protect the streamer and the company from lawsuits.

Have "your word" that you don't mind a company playing your game for profit means fucking nothing because
>permissions that are informally granted can be informally revoked just as well

Pic related, happened to pewds and got him a strike in his channel because the developer changed his mind about the informal permission.
Having it in writing is the only way to make sure you really got permissions

>>14964207
>How likely permission stuff is just western companies opening their email and going what is this, is this spam mail or a joke?
Yeah, right. Tell that to Pewds.

If it is not in ink what was given implicitly can be revoked implicitly as well.

>>9008794
>A lot of Devs have gave hololive permission publicly on Twitter to play their games
Permission is as good as the ink in the paper with the signed contract.
Any permission given by social media can be retracted through social media and with the corresponding strikes to match
>pic related

>>8060322
More similar to game devs striking Pewdiepie because he said nigger and urging others to do that
>but on a much higher level because chink companies all derive their power from the same source

>>6863168
>allows them to play but their autism man...
It's not autism, it is being smart.

Having an unsigned implicit consent can backfire as fast as some developer takes exception with you. See:
>some retarded developer retroactively retracting permission for pewds and urging other developers to do likewise and STRIKE Pewdiepie channel because he said "nigger"

>Ibrahim also pointed out that Vanaman’s reasons for issuing the DMCA takedown notice, which Kjellberg spoke about at length in the video above, aren’t of any real importance in the court of law.
>Under copyright, an author’s underlying justification for bringing an action carries very little weight unless the claim lacks merit. If, as most of my clients believe, Let’s Play is not fair use, Vanaman could issue a take down for any reason or no reason and all, and as long as there is still actual infringement, an argument of “bad faith” probably won’t have much of an effect on the outcome unless you get a very sympathetic judge or jury.
And the consequence would be
>According to Google’s policy, if Kjellberg were to receive three copyright strikes, his account will be terminated.
>All videos uploaded to his account will be removed and he won't be able to create new accounts.
>Essentially, every video he has ever uploaded to YouTube will be erased.

Bottom line is: you either get written non retroactively revocable permission or any developer can simply wait until one of your talents streamed three videos with your property, strike it three times and give that talent the death penalty

Capcom came very close to do it to Cover, they striked Mio TWICE and held back the third, and send a very serious letter to Cover saying more or less
>kneel or we tout the third horn and unleash apocalypse