Hasbro-WotC copyright strike independent reviewers

Brad · August 07, 2024, 01:49:10 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 07, 2024, 01:46:08 PMI have a simple solution.
Stop reviewing WOTC products.

I wrote a WotC product review that should cover all current and future releases:

"Instead of buying this, you could do something more useful with your money like purchasing lottery tickets or giving it to homeless people."

Man at Arms · August 07, 2024, 02:04:59 PM

Perhaps use the new PHB cover as a backdrop for your other videos, with the words "Just Say No to This" emblazoned in bold red text across the cover? Don't even mention that book. Talk up other great RPG's, instead.

Ratman_tf · August 07, 2024, 02:32:58 PM

Quote from: Man at Arms on August 07, 2024, 02:04:59 PMPerhaps use the new PHB cover as a backdrop for your other videos, with the words "Just Say No to This" emblazoned in bold red text across the cover? Don't even mention that book. Talk up other great RPG's, instead.

That's what Justin Alexander did. (Not precisely, but close enough)

BoxCrayonTales · August 07, 2024, 03:15:52 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2024, 11:12:26 AMThis, exactly.

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

I agree. We should reduce the lengths of copyright terms to something reasonable, like 28 years. Trademark already covers the rest.

PulpHerb · August 08, 2024, 06:10:31 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on August 07, 2024, 04:51:27 AM
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.

Exactly. These reviews will be up after the review process but by then the "approved" reviews will have gotten tons of views and these will look like johnny come latelies.

PulpHerb · August 08, 2024, 06:12:08 PM

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

And both people interested in D&D 6e on Rumble will see it.

For things like D&D reviews it is still pretty much YT or nothing.

PulpHerb · August 08, 2024, 06:31:24 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 07, 2024, 03:15:52 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 07, 2024, 11:12:26 AMThis, exactly.

But the answer is (arguably) LESS regulation; IP itself only exists because it is protected by the state, etc.
I agree. We should reduce the lengths of copyright terms to something reasonable, like 28 years. Trademark already covers the rest.

And no more retroactive changes to the length. Your copyright is governed under the law the year the work was produced.

If it is renewable (like the scheme in place up to the 70s) make a charge for the renewal.

I'd allow unlimited renewal but the extension length halves and the cost doubles (and is indexed to CPI) every renewal. Would be a direct attack on the copyright squatters.

Mistwell · August 08, 2024, 10:52:08 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 06, 2024, 11:07:25 PM
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.

False. Three videos received a warning. All three showed more than 50% of the book. Only one received an actual strike. The strike was removed and WOTC apologized for the strike (which had been done independently by the legal team, possibly due to a YouTube automated warning).

Videos which were HIGHLY critical of WOTC did not receive a warning or strike. DNDShorts for example RIPPED into WOTC and did not receive a warning for that video. However their video showing ALL the PHB pages, in order and slow enough to pause on every single page, did receive a warning and he moved it to private.

It was purely based on showing full screen of pages, 50%-100% depending on the video.

Omega · August 09, 2024, 12:28:12 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on August 07, 2024, 02:43:17 AMReviews should be covered under fair use. Unless you signed an NDA

One of the video people WotC contacted and sent a physical book to early and did not have an NDA to sign, did his videos and wotc promptly sent him a warning to not show any images of the that are not at least 75% blurred out.

"The deal has changed. Pray it does not change again"

Theory of Games · August 10, 2024, 01:47:55 PM

It's Hasbro's shit. If YouTubers don't want to review it as commanded, then stop reviewing Hasbro's shit. Like I told EN World:

Spinachcat · August 10, 2024, 06:40:36 PM

Here's my review:

"WotC can go fuck itself. Play OSR instead. But if you want to read D&D 6e, I highly suggest raising the black flag for the digital seas are fertile waters."

M2A0 · August 10, 2024, 10:16:38 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on August 10, 2024, 06:40:36 PMHere's my review:

"WotC can go fuck itself. Play OSR instead. But if you want to read D&D 6e, I highly suggest raising the black flag for the digital seas are fertile waters."

The DNDShorts notDnD2024PHB pdf is already more common than a potion of water breathing on the high seas.