If you're not on the list of (SHILLS) approved reviewers for the new D&D6e you can't review it or else...

There are ways to post opinion videos, without showing images of those dang books in the videos.

"Regarding the latest 2024 release, for the world's most well known RP-G...."

Don't show images of the books themselves, don't say the name of the company, etc.

Much of the terminology, is words which are covered by the Creative Commons.  Use that openly shared terminology as much as possible; to compare the 2014 version, to the 2024 changes.

Just give an opinion piece.  Not a pictorial review.  Be vague enough, to dodge their B.S.

Quote from: Man at Arms on August 06, 2024, 11:04:18 PMThere are ways to post opinion videos, without showing images of those dang books in the videos.

"Regarding the latest 2024 release, for the world's most well known RP-G...."

Don't show images of the books themselves, don't say the name of the company, etc.

Much of the terminology, is words which are covered by the Creative Commons.  Use that openly shared terminology as much as possible; to compare the 2014 version, to the 2024 changes.

Just give an opinion piece.  Not a pictorial review.  Be vague enough, to dodge their B.S.

Except a video that didn't show images was struck down anyway.

It's odd that WOTC was distributing copies at GenCon, but they don't think people should be able to review the book that's in their own hands?

Quote from: Man at Arms on August 06, 2024, 11:12:02 PMIt's odd that WOTC was distributing copies at GenCon, but they don't think people should be able to review the book that's in their own hands?

When a movie/videogame studio does this it's usually because the product is shit.

Reviews should be covered under fair use.  Unless you signed an NDA

Quote from: Man at Arms on August 06, 2024, 11:04:18 PMDon't show images of the books themselves, don't say the name of the company, etc.

All of that is covered under fair use in a review.  This is just abuse of the copyright system to suppress negative reviews.

Here's my review:

"WotC are too scared to allow me to review this under fair use, so it is probably wank and they don't want you to know that."

It's pretty well known at this point that the way YouTube applies the DMCA makes Fair Use utterly toothless. If a corporation strikes your video you can challenge the strike, but the challenge can take months to be resolved, which effectively buries the video for algorithm purposes. Plus, if you lose a certain number of challenges, you lose your channel. You can also re-edit and re-release the video to avoid copyright, but I've heard of people having to re-edit their videos tens of times, which again takes so long that it makes the video non-viable if being abreast of current events is important to its success.

A corporation like WOTC doesn't need to keep a video off YouTube permanently, they just need to delay it or bury it in the algorithm to prevent it from reaching an audience. They're thinking in big numbers, so as long as more of their target audience sees the shill reviews than see the negative ones, that's a win for them.

This is why we need desperately to reform copyright law. It's being used by evil corporations to suppress free speech. Corporations are so powerful now that they're interfering with our constitutional rights. They need to be regulated before we turn into a cyberpunk dystopia... even more than we are already.

Quote from: Man at Arms on August 06, 2024, 11:04:18 PMThere are ways to post opinion videos, without showing images of those dang books in the videos.

"Regarding the latest 2024 release, for the world's most well known RP-G...."

This is in no way compatible with freedom of expression.

It illustrates that "intellectual property" is often a form of censorship, like many claim.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 07, 2024, 10:57:07 AMThis is why we need desperately to reform copyright law. It's being used by evil corporations to suppress free speech. Corporations are so powerful now that they're interfering with our constitutional rights. They need to be regulated before we turn into a cyberpunk dystopia... even more than we are already.

This, exactly.

But the answer is (arguably) LESS regulation; IP itself only exists because it is protected by the state, etc.

Try reviewing it on Rumble.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2024, 11:12:26 AM

Quote from: Man at Arms on August 06, 2024, 11:04:18 PMThere are ways to post opinion videos, without showing images of those dang books in the videos.

"Regarding the latest 2024 release, for the world's most well known RP-G...."

This is in no way compatible with freedom of expression.

It illustrates that "intellectual property" is often a form of censorship, like many claim.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 07, 2024, 10:57:07 AMThis is why we need desperately to reform copyright law. It's being used by evil corporations to suppress free speech. Corporations are so powerful now that they're interfering with our constitutional rights. They need to be regulated before we turn into a cyberpunk dystopia... even more than we are already.

This, exactly.

But the answer is (arguably) LESS regulation; IP itself only exists because it is protected by the state, etc.

The problem is that all these corporations have as much or more influence with congress as they do with Youtube, so I don't really see how you'd ever get that done.

Quote from: DocJones on August 07, 2024, 11:35:55 AMTry reviewing it on Rumble.

^^THIS^^

Google and YouTube are currently being hit with monopoly challenges by the DOJ. They may not be able to remain on top for long.

I have a simple solution.
Stop reviewing WOTC products.