1  0

Poorly-rated. 1  5

Poorly-rated. 1  4

Was it fair that GHP's account got the axe? Were the reasons behind the action logically sound to the rest of us?

We all know the answer in two simple words: HELL. NO.

I swear, what lawyers do sometimes just make me sick to my stomach. This is NOT the action of the copyright holders, no; it's the actions of their lawyers. I can tell, trust me.

For God's sake, can't those suits leave us be for one moment?!

2  0

I hate to be the devil's advocate here, and I am most definitely not a lawyer, but I can see why the takedown was issued. Here's the thing: If you're showing gameplay only, or yourself engaged in gameplay, it's a pretty clear case of fair use (as long as you're abiding by the parameters of fair use, of course — that is, not somehow showing the entire game, etc.). On top of that, what you're doing is highlighting the game, not the music — the music is licensed for inclusion in the game, and you're showing the game, so the rights-holder for the song doesn't really have room for argument. The publisher would be the one who'd have to step up and issue a takedown notice, and they know there's little reason or justification to do that.

The article says that for one video, they "muted the game's studio vocals and drums while Danny played a single player Guitar game, while Jack and Scotty sang and played real drums together in time with Danny." That's where you cross the line from reporting and/or critiquing, which is covered under fair use, to performance, which is not. To particularly prickly rights-holders, playing an instrument along with a recording and posting it to YouTube is functionally the same as recording your own cover song where you're performing all the parts.

Now, was it silly to do? I think so — like so many covers on YouTube and other video sites, in my opinion the artist loses much more in bad press by ordering something taken down than they gain by trying to be overprotective of their property. But I'd bet that the playing along is what gave them the idea that they could legitimately contest the use, whether it would hold up in court or not. That step over the line from "reporting" to "performing" is probably what pulled the trigger.

So, I'd imagine that if Danny avoids similar performance videos in the future, he should be fine.

Once again, though, I'm not a lawyer, so take this all with a grain of salt.

Rock on,
-j.

Highly-rated. 4  0

This faggot right here is actually useful at the moment, he's been uploading your videos, and you can download them with a Google Chrome Extension so you get the Full HD

http://www.youtube.com/user/gh5rock

he's seriously got a lot of your stuff…..

3  0

4  1

Wow, this is some bull shit. I heard JLC got his account back because his mom was a lawyer or something? Correct me if I'm wrong but if thats the case, then eh…thats some bull shit

Hope you guys can get your stuff back up, I'm glad you're not quiting

Highly-rated. 15  1