PC Game 'Devotion' Is Back, Now Being Sold Directly By The Developer
Furnished content.
Late last year, we discussed a disappointing move by GOG to delist well-reviewed horror PC game Devotion from its platform. Making it all very odd were the facts that GOG had just announced that morning that the game would be available that day, as well as Devotion's previous delisting from Steam. The reason for the multiple delistings was never perfectly spelled out in either case, but the game includes a reference to China's President Xi and the never ending joke that he resembles Winnie the Pooh. GOG, instead of being open about that being the obvious reason to delist the game, instead said it made the move after receiving "messages from gamers." Groan.Well, fortunately, this is 2021, which means instead of the game dying on the doorstep of well-entrenched gatekeepers, developer Red Candle Games can instead just release the game itself on its own website.After running into nothing but trouble on other people’s platforms, the game’s developers have decided to just sell the game themselves, opening up an online store for international customers that is selling digital, DRM-free copies of Devotion, their previous game Detention, as well as soundtrack bundles for both. Despite all the complaints from the industry about how the internet serves only to flood the universe in copyright infringement, this is the transformative power of the internet. Gatekeepers that add value can still find a place for themselves, as GOG and Steam have certainly done. But when they try to shut down the distribution of content for cowardly business reasons, well, the developer can just route around them and sell directly to the consumer. Honestly, it's mostly surprising that this has happened more often in the past and become the norm.For its part, Red Candle Games does plan on this being the norm for them moving forward.And, really, why not? The developer has been bitten in the ass twice now when it comes to distributing through the big online players, both times over the hurt feelings of a honey-mad, cartoon maybe-bear President of China. Why not just go it alone and keep from having to put up with all of this nonsense.The bigger question is, of course, just how successful this will be. If Red Candle Games can demonstrate that it can go it alone in this way, showing that routing distribution through the likes of Steam and GOG aren't always the best path, that could lead to more experiments like this... or a change in the distributors behavior.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 18-Mar-2021
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Content Moderation Case Studies: Can Baby Yoda GIFs Defeat The DMCA Force? (2019)
Furnished content.
Summary: In the fall of 2019, Disney launched its Disney+ streaming service to instant acclaim. While it offered up access to the extensive Disney catalog (including all of its Marvel, Star Wars, and 21st Century Fox archives), the first big new hit for the service was a TV series set in the Star Wars universe called The Mandalorian, which featured a character regularly referred to as Baby Yoda.Baby Yoda was a clear hit online, and people quickly made animated gif images of the character, helping spread more interest in The Mandalorian and the Disney+ service. However, soon after Vulture Magazine put up a story that was all just Baby Yoda GIFs, it was discovered that Giphy, a company that has built a repository of GIFs, had taken all of the Baby Yoda GIFs down. This caused many to complain, blaming Disney, highlighting that such GIFs were clearly fair use.Many people assumed that Disney was behind the takedown of the Baby Yoda GIFs. This may be a natural assumption since Disney, above and beyond almost any other company, has a decades-long reputation for aggressively enforcing its copyright. The Washington Post even wrote up an entire article scolding Disney for not understanding fans.That article noted that it was possible that Giphy pre-emptively decided to take down the images, but pointed out that this was, in some ways, even worse. This would mean that Disney's own reputation as an aggressive enforcer of copyrights would lead another company to take action even without an official DMCA takedown notice.Giphy itself has always lived in something of a gray area regarding copyright, since many of the GIFs are from popular culture, including TVs and movies. While there is a strong argument that these are fair use, the company has claimed that most of its content is licensed, and said that it does not rely on fair use.Decisions to be made by Giphy:- Should the company rely on fair use to cover certain GIFs that are uploaded, or should it try to license everything?
- Regarding uploaded GIFs, how aggressive should the company be in searching for and taking down content? Should it only do so after receiving a takedown notice, or should it proactively remove content?
- For popular content, like Baby Yoda images, should Giphy reach out to the copyright holder (in the case Disney) to either get permission or to work out a partnership?
Questions and policy implications to consider:- Popular culture content is frequently used in memes and GIFs. Is copyright law properly calibrated to allow this kind of activity?
- Fair use is found in only a few countries (most notably, the US). How do differences in international copyright law impact the ability of a service like Giphy to exist?
- Is Disney better off encouraging fans to spread GIFs, such as those of Baby Yoda, than exercising whatever copyright enforcement powers it has?
- If Giphy took down the Baby Yoda images preemptively, does that indicate that fear of copyright litigation is holding back cultural sharing?
Resolution: Soon after the story went viral, Giphy issued an apology to Disney, and to Vulture which had posted the original article full of Baby Yoda GIFs. The apology suggested that Giphy had made the decision to remove the GIFs without any takedown notice or other input from Disney."Last week, there was some confusion around certain content uploaded to Giphy and we temporarily removed these Gifs while we reviewed the situation," said the image-hosting website in a statement."We apologise to both Disney and Vulture for any inconvenience, and we are happy to report that the Gifs are once again live on Giphy." In multiple articles about this, it is noted that Disney refused to comment on the issue, leaving some reporters to wonder if Disney had played a role but did not wish to discuss it publicly. Either way, there are now many Baby Yoda GIFs on Giphy.Originally posted on the Trust & Safety Foundation website.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 18-Mar-2021
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|
