About limiting captures of demoscene productions
category: general [glöplog]
Gargaj, this happened back in 2009 and I took them down immediately when you told me that you are not ok with it.
Quote:
I think this is more about priority, not keeping people outside a select group from watching these productions at all (otherwise it would indeed not be a release).I don't really get this new demoscene trend of "I want my prod to be viewed by certain people who I choose, under a certain context because it is, after all, my prod." Why release it then in the first place? Just keep it in your hard drive and show it to a couple of friends if you really want something like this.
Somebody putting effort into going to a party, swapping physical media etc. on one side, random consumers skipping through online videos on the other.
Quote:
The main issue I see here about all this is that some groups have issues with shitty captures of prods [...]
I don't get what's the eagerness to make that capture, if not monetizing? As in, if there's perfectly good capture available, why just not throw it on your youtube playlist and call it a day? Or are people just incapable of googling/poueting/youtubing that they don't find the official capture and think it's the easiest way?
It's quite hard to see any other _real_ motivation than monetization.
Quote:
I don't get what's the eagerness to make that capture, if not monetizing?
I don't believe that anyone who ever uploaded a demo capture on youtube did it for the sole purpose of making money. I think it was more along the lines of contributing to the community in one way or the other (and yes I agree, it is pretty lame to make money out of someone else's work). I was very disappointed to see capped.tv go since it was all about decent demo captures without all the monetizing crap youtube brought along the way. And since we are opening old cases, back in 2010, I considered starting something like capped.tv as a side project but on untergrund.net. Of course, I talked about it with scamp and he turned the idea down (he was right about it and I totally agree with his decision) because the cost and bandwidth to run something big like this was pretty much high back in the days. Now if someone could afford starting a project like this nowadays would solve many of the fore mentioned problems.
Since it is brought up many times by now: Are there actual numbers in terms of money? Not knowing anything about the yt world I still tend to assume that nobody makes even 5 bucks a month by showing/sharing demo captures. Sure, it would be for something the channel owner did not create himself but i wonder if this is more a theoretical issue than a real "threat".
It's not whether they do, it's whether they try, and demo quality becomes a collateral.
By the way, I don't think it's about monetization, it's about attention.
1) There is no possible other motivation for shitty recaptures of prods with existing captures than monetizing. Maybe in the short term people can do it for fame, but fame translates to money, eventually.
2) Regarding captures for prods that don't have one or recaptures: People let you enjoy demos for free, sometimes worth several person-years of work. Some even give the source code for you to study. Is it too much to ask that people spend a few hours to learn how to do at least decent capture? Kudos if you can do a better (e.g. 4K) capture than the official one; I'm sure this will be far more tolerated than captures with color channels swapped.
2) Regarding captures for prods that don't have one or recaptures: People let you enjoy demos for free, sometimes worth several person-years of work. Some even give the source code for you to study. Is it too much to ask that people spend a few hours to learn how to do at least decent capture? Kudos if you can do a better (e.g. 4K) capture than the official one; I'm sure this will be far more tolerated than captures with color channels swapped.
sens, I believe there are channels that have been uploading demos systematically, monetizing them and they must be making ~500$ - 1000$ a month (if they did the whole yt algorithm thing right), which is a salary for some people. For me it is unethical but it is happening on yt for over a decade now and not only with demos. I had a yt channel (unmonetized of course) with some old demos mostly but the channel was suppressed for the more active monetized channels (that's how yt works in that aspect).
Quote:
Since it is brought up many times by now: Are there actual numbers in terms of money? Not knowing anything about the yt world I still tend to assume that nobody makes even 5 bucks a month by showing/sharing demo captures. Sure, it would be for something the channel owner did not create himself but i wonder if this is more a theoretical issue than a real "threat".
that's the point ... for 30 years now i don't know anybody except two - three people in my circle of acquaintances who gives a shit about demos, even if they come in 8k super duper HQ videos, so yeah, i think it's a phantom discussion ... by the way the same way the movie and music industry wants to sell us the need for tougher copyright laws for 40 years now (very successfully in germany by the way) ... i don't mind if every demo comes with a EULA, but if that makes any sense is another story ...
Quote:
This work may not be broadcasted or distributed in video form without an explicit permission by the authors.
Just to clarify: this does mean that online/offline+streamed demoparties can't show these prods during demoshows / scene.org awards / etc., doesn't it? I don't see any exception for this particular common case. Maybe such prods should be labelled with a warning to avoid party organizer pitfalls...
It doesn't have to about payouts: the resulting subscribers themselves are worth something. Maybe you can use it as a channel to advertise your new game? Maybe you can use it as a channel to advertise that you are in need of a job? Maybe you just mention that btw I also run this retrogaming stream and here's my patreon? Subscribers/likes/fame can translate to money in more than just yt payouts.
The fact that demoscene is fringe hobby is specifically what enables this business model: one could not reupload Despacito music videos and get away with it. It has to be something sufficiently fringe that they don't (likely) come after you.
The fact that demoscene is fringe hobby is specifically what enables this business model: one could not reupload Despacito music videos and get away with it. It has to be something sufficiently fringe that they don't (likely) come after you.
Quote:
Just to clarify: this does mean that online/offline+streamed demoparties can't show these prods during demoshows / scene.org awards / etc., doesn't it? I don't see any exception for this particular common case. Maybe such prods should be labelled with a warning to avoid party organizer pitfalls...
This does mean that it gives the authors leverage on raising drama according to their preferences. :)
Quote:
It doesn't have to about payouts: the resulting subscribers themselves are worth something. Maybe you can use it as a channel to advertise your new game? Maybe you can use it as a channel to advertise that you are in need of a job? Maybe you just mention that btw I also run this retrogaming stream and here's my patreon? Subscribers/likes/fame can translate to money in more than just yt payouts.
Yeah, that's pretty much the yt ecosystem of monetized channels (or at least channels run by people with profit in mind). All this was (and can be) pretty much solved by a non-commercial video hosting service for demos like capped.tv. It is the demo as much decently captured as it gets (with no ads or anything else), a link to download the prod and run it on actual hardware, the prod page on pouet for comments and that's it. Nothing else from this whole profit thing.
@Defiance: there is https://theartofhardcoding.com/
Over at the IRC(!), there were one pretty interesting point imo: (I translate)
Quote:
<xyz> would a pretty nice move from demoscene if they could get such mentality widely accepted that demos are to be only watched like it's makers have intended. all other art forms have had to accept facts in these matters
<xyz> for example even mona lisa is probably something that 99.999% of people have only seen it as a shitty print or after 5x jpeg-compression :)
By the way ... what's with prods that are heavily inspired by other forms of art (like movies). The demoscene is known for stretching the term »inspiration« to the max. Just because you take a music video or movie and make it realtime it's not your intellectual property automatically. So who is the person who decides how such a production can be spread?
Quote:
<xyz> would a pretty nice move from demoscene if they could get such mentality widely accepted that demos are to be only watched like it's makers have intended. all other art forms have had to accept facts in these matters
<xyz> for example even mona lisa is probably something that 99.999% of people have only seen it as a shitty print or after 5x jpeg-compression :)
So you're saying Leonardo would not be issuing DMCA notices through his lawyers if he was alive? Or ranting on the internet how you should go to see the real thing? Or could be only that he happens to be long since dead? Actually, I'm pretty sure dead sceners won't flame you for making (bad) captures of their prod, so in this regard demoscene is similar to other art forms.
Quote:
By the way ... what's with prods that are heavily inspired by other forms of art (like movies). The demoscene is known for stretching the term »inspiration« to the max. Just because you take a music video or movie and make it realtime it's not your intellectual property automatically. So who is the person who decides how such a production can be spread?
Sure, copyright is probably broken there, but so is in fan fiction movies and books. However, making a real time version of a music video or movie represents perhaps 1000 x the work of making a capture of an existing prod, so if we are to value some kind of a contribution to the scene, there's no contest here.
Hey, I was able to come up with some sort of an explanation and car analogy. So I can legitimately ignore your wishes.
Quote:
Over at the IRC(!), there were one pretty interesting point imo: (I translate)
Quote:<xyz> would a pretty nice move from demoscene if they could get such mentality widely accepted that demos are to be only watched like it's makers have intended. all other art forms have had to accept facts in these matters
<xyz> for example even mona lisa is probably something that 99.999% of people have only seen it as a shitty print or after 5x jpeg-compression :)
Ok I might not get the full meaning of this but no, all other art forms have not succeeded in getting their art experienced in the form their creators intended. People still watch movies on their phones, listen to music on shit equipment and see paintings as inferior reproductions.
_This_ is what I mean by loosing control of your art after release, not that you don't have any rights to it. (I'm looking at you @yzi)
Is the same discussion as the pd libraries of the past :) People simply will look at recordings and stream music even if they got the computer/vinyl/cd at hand these days, I do it also :)
Still i do enjoy real hardware/physical music at times :)
Still i do enjoy real hardware/physical music at times :)
Inferior reproductions of the original pieces are one thing, freeriding with just another capture while better/official ones are just a click away, another. :)
Might a bad capture count as a "derivative work" that could be forbidden with CC-ND license? If a capture actually swaps color channels (like mentioned previously), can it really be seen as the same work?
Not enough derivation, not enough work...