theFlu
Hunter
That case still has no correlation to this one, I ain't about to retype my rebuttal.
No.
Cool; but also just fanfic again.
The missed post from JaWoodle
- Thread starter richardjrb76
- Start date
bdubyah
Hunter
You're the one who brought it up. And Woodle wasn't hired. They didn't contract him to make the videos. They kindly allowed him into their creator program where he was given access to build earlier than the public to make content. Equipment costs and all that are on him, which is why he should probably take his job more serious and not bite the hand that feeds him.
Dooderina
Refugee
Time to edit videos is a cost. The labor to edit is a cost. Equipment is a cost. Electricity is a cost. Editing software is a cost. Rendering videos costs the use of the machine for awhile. Lost opportunity doing anything else with his time is a cost.There is no cost involved in unpublishing a video.
And don't tell me he should be compensated for the loss of future revenues from a video containing someone else's proprietary data
While his videos remain unpublished, his competitors see views. His audience goes elsewhere. His videos become irrelevant if left unpublished for so long. Videos don't magically edit themselves. And yes, they were asking him to sacrifice his revenue, time, and labor to fix their mistake.
Did they have an agreement to cover this kind of situation? Anything in writing that would describe what either side is responsible for? This is why DETAILED contracts are important.
Guess it'll all come out in court.
Kire
Scavenger
Like i said elsewhere, he plays the game for 1 hour a day (most difficult job in the world!) and edits for another. And the videos are barely edited at all. It would be a small cost to edit or remake those videos. You would think his relations with TFP are worth more than a couple of bucks he would make from those videos, especially since the majority of viewers already seen it.
And you're just reaching with those costs, as if he got software specifically for this video. "Electricity costs" go send him a 2$ donation if you're so worried about this bills
Jost Amman
Hunter
Well, TFP mistakenly published the wrong version, true...
but why was JaWoodle the ONLY streamer who made the mistake of showing unauthorized content?
Was he setup by TFP to fail, like some say?
What if others published the same content on their videos?
Would TFP have asked also to them to remove that content?
We'll never know, because apparently JaWoodle was the only one to make this mistake.
theFlu
Hunter
Reasonable guess, time zones. As an aussie, he was highly likely to be the first to download and start playing .. and once you're playing, steam won't update your game from underneath you.
Jost Amman
Hunter
So, you're telling me he was the ONLY streamer from Australia?
Also, what about streamers from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, etc... which are in the same time zone?
Did they also mistakenly show the wrong version?
Listen listen LISTEN!!!
Don't fall for the emotional manipulation. Google Adsense revenue is not what you think it is. It is small. He is grossly overstating.
And he is no Steven Spielberg. His videos aren't even what would be considered "edited"...they're simply cut. He makes low-effort "let's-plays". That's the only way he can shovel those videos out once a day.
And the legal demand letter did mention an NDA. Now, some lawyer must've thought it was legally binding enough to bring it up, so....
And that is not you in your profile pic. But if that is you then I take it all back and believe everything you say.
Dead Smarty
Survivor
Australia has 3 timezones and the other locations you mentioned are not all in the same zone
Frantic Dan already talked about this somewhere here on the forum. Jawoodle wasn't the only one to get it early.So, you're telling me he was the ONLY streamer from Australia?
Also, what about streamers from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, etc... which are in the same time zone?
Did they also mistakenly show the wrong version?
RyanFaeScotland
Refugee
This is the second time you've made this analogy, and you are not wrong, but it is flawed.
If Mick Jagger sent you the next Rolling Stones album, you are right, you wouldn't be allowed to publish it and it wouldn't be yours.
Much in the same way that TFP sent JaWoodle the next build of 7Days and he isn't allowed to publish that build and it isn't his.
But that's not what he published. He published a review of it. His review of it, which he most certainly does own. The question is, does that review featuring unreleased content constitute enough of a breach of TFP's legal rights (copyright or otherwise) that they have the right to have it removed. Much like if you'd published a review of the album you'd heard, with just enough samples to get your points across, but not enough to recreate the entire album and definitely not the actual album itself, would you be within your legal rights to publish that review?
There are more complexities than that of course, which is why lawyers are involved and why we're at page 24 of people going round in circles discussing it, but I hope this gives some food for thought.
Just cause you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds doesn't mean you need to lick the boot instead.
Based on information provided by another eligible streamer, all participating streamers were initially issued the incorrect game build. While they were downloading it, the incorrect build was replaced with the correct version before many of them had an opportunity to launch the game.
Arguably, the purpose of the streamer weekend was to showcase vanilla gameplay. While Creative Mode is part of the vanilla game, it is reasonable to question whether Creative Mode–restricted content from the incorrect build aligns with the streamer weekend intent of demonstrating standard gameplay.
Regardless, this raises a question: if JW had the time and resources to edit the video by adding disclaimers stating that the showcased content was not part of the 3.0 build, why was there not sufficient time or resources to edit the video to remove the incorrect content instead? If the explanation was that such edits required compensation from TFP, it is unclear why adding disclaimers was feasible while removing the content itself was not.
Arguably, the purpose of the streamer weekend was to showcase vanilla gameplay. While Creative Mode is part of the vanilla game, it is reasonable to question whether Creative Mode–restricted content from the incorrect build aligns with the streamer weekend intent of demonstrating standard gameplay.
Regardless, this raises a question: if JW had the time and resources to edit the video by adding disclaimers stating that the showcased content was not part of the 3.0 build, why was there not sufficient time or resources to edit the video to remove the incorrect content instead? If the explanation was that such edits required compensation from TFP, it is unclear why adding disclaimers was feasible while removing the content itself was not.
A few may even have done that. If they didn't look into the spawn menue and didn't notice the coop nobody would have seen a difference.
By the way, (AFAIR) FranticDan said he had seen the wrong update as well but even while downloading it switched to the correct version for him.
RyanFaeScotland
Refugee
Although from a technical perspective you can just cut footage and re-publish a video, from a content perspective it just isn't that simple. There will be a narrative the review is attempting to communicate, features chosen to focus on as key and shine the spotlight on, a feeling it is attempting to invoke, and perhaps even a run-length it is aiming for. All of this runs the risk of being lost if you start removing parts, and a re-write might be needed. You can see why creators would want to come to a compromise that allows the original to stay up (such adding in some edits via 'Editing Josh' which helps leave the original concept in place without the need to hit the drawing board again).
Slight exaggerated but related example (and at the risk of getting flagged for spam), The Nostalgia Critic just released 2 cuts of a review of Forrest Gump, 1 that was the original that got copyright struck, and 1 that is the hard cut version approved by the studio, that highlights the issue:
Original 30min video:
theFlu
Hunter
Yes, absolutely. No-one in the history of everything has ever streamed anything , besides JaWoodle. All bow down to the Mighty Muppet!So, you're telling me he was the ONLY streamer from Australia?
Anything else you want to clarify?
Post automatically merged:
If this is the case; and Woodle was merely asking for that tiny sum of money, or equivalent in 7dtd keys to raffle; would this mean his request was reasonable? Or would he be the devil anyway, for daring to ask something "fair"?
pApA^LeGBa
Hunter
So you say he is stupid. If you need to spawn them in, you know they aren´t supposed to be there yet. That´s really simple logic if you have more than two brain cells left...