I saw that boogie2988 and AlphaOmegaSin both trashing him on Youtube last night. While the guy is certainly over the top, I don't completely disagree with him on the LP thing (just mostly). I'm definitely in the minority on that issue, however.
"...but not for a single moment do they do so to improve video quality - it's simply profit for them" - Yeah, except you seem to be forgetting the fact that people watching YouTube are more likely to watch the better content, thus meaning those people make more money.
"They encourage them to pester viewers with ads in the first place" - They're giving you FREE CONTENT to watch. The ads you get on YouTube are NOTHING compared to television, and yet you still whine about someone managing to support themselves financially?
"Loads and utter overloads of amateurs upload their half-baked videos of them dying countless times at the same spot and call it "Let's Play". - Yeah, they do, and then they don't get any views or make money off it. If they DO, its because a substantial number of people disagree with you, and actually enjoy watching it. As I have said before, taking revenue from gaming YouTubers wont remove the terrible videos (They weren't making any money in the first place, why would they stop?), it'll only stop the actual quality content that people needed to put a lot of time into to make (Which they cant afford to do anymore because its not profitable).
"...that doesn't change that LP'ers make money out of their free time" - Wow, here comes the jealousy again. You do realise that the most popular and viewed YouTubers actually have this as their full time job, right? It's not their 'free time' because without it they'd need to find another job to support themselves. You're basically just saying you want people to lose jobs because you personally don't like they can make money where you cant. How petty is that?
"I don't see why I - or anyone, for that matter - should be forced to support that" - You're not forced to support it. How about you don't watch their content if its so terrible? By watching it with adblock you're basically confirming that this is the kind of content you want to be made and want to watch, while denying compensation to those that actually put the time and effort into making it. The jealousy of such stances astounds me.
"I neither support greedy Let's Players nor greedy Google in this" - I don't think you quite understand how companies or jobs work. People do something they like and put effort into it, and there's a demand for it - so they make money off of it. Companies invest money in a system like YouTube and get it back when they actually get customers and viewers. This is one of the few forms of content where you, the viewer, doesn't need to pay for anything, and yet you think they're being greedy? Just...how?
Just imagine this logic applied to anything else. I don't think footballers should be paid because they're making loads of money off of someone elses work! Someone else created the idea for the sport and now thousands of people are making money off of their idea? They should all lose their jobs! All jobs rely on material or tools created by someone else before them. An arbitrary chain of compensation doesn't exist for the whole job market, so why should it apply here?
"They encourage them to pester viewers with ads in the first place" - They're giving you FREE CONTENT to watch. The ads you get on YouTube are NOTHING compared to television, and yet you still whine about someone managing to support themselves financially?
The pervasiveness of advertisement on television is a non-factor to the discussion, so I'm not quite sure why you're bring it up here. You're adding 1+1 and getting 47.
"Loads and utter overloads of amateurs upload their half-baked videos of them dying countless times at the same spot and call it "Let's Play". - Yeah, they do, and then they don't get any views or make money off it. If they DO, its because a substantial number of people disagree with you, and actually enjoy watching it. As I have said before, taking revenue from gaming YouTubers wont remove the terrible videos (They weren't making any money in the first place, why would they stop?), it'll only stop the actual quality content that people needed to put a lot of time into to make (Which they cant afford to do anymore because its not profitable).
Even for the Youtubers who manage to be entertaining, it doesn't change the fact that their entire business model is based around being able to monetize some else's work.
"...that doesn't change that LP'ers make money out of their free time" - Wow, here comes the jealousy again. You do realise that the most popular and viewed YouTubers actually have this as their full time job, right? It's not their 'free time' because without it they'd need to find another job to support themselves. You're basically just saying you want people to lose jobs because you personally don't like they can make money where you cant. How petty is that?
While it sucks for the people who are out of work, job security isn't guaranteed in traditional employment venues, much less something as new and experimental as Youtube. But I do agree that if you're spending hours a day on something to support yourself, it's not free time.
Just imagine this logic applied to anything else. I don't think footballers should be paid because they're making loads of money off of someone elses work! Someone else created the idea for the sport and now thousands of people are making money off of their idea? They should all lose their jobs!
All jobs rely on material or tools created by someone else before them. An arbitrary chain of compensation doesn't exist for the whole job market, so why should it apply here?
Your example is really, really bad. Let me give you a better one, that's more relevant to this situation. Imagine a user purchases a copy of 50 Shades of Grade and through a series of videos, reads aloud large portions of it on camera while intermittently showing drawings he or she has made for certain scenes. Did they put a lot of work into this? Absolutely. Should they be able to make money off it? Absolutely not. Because even though they've put work into it, their money is earned directly off the back of someone else's work. It's the same reasoning behind why people can't simply publish fanfiction and sell it.
And just for clarity's sake, I'm alright with Let's Plays within the bounds of traditional fair use (IE snippets and segments, not showing the entire game). But I don't think it should be monetizable without explicit permission by the IP holder.
"The pervasiveness of advertisement on television is a non-factor to the discussion, so I'm not quite sure why you're bring it up here. You're adding 1+1 and getting 47." - Media needs to be funded to continue to exist. Instead of simply charging a huge amount of money to watch certain channels, money is made off of advertising. On YouTube - there is absolutely no payment from the customer. If YouTube videos didn't have ads then no one would be able to do it professionally without actually charging viewers for the content. You either pay for something with money or time, or you don't get it. If that isn't fair in your eyes then stop consuming their content. That's why I'm bringing it up here.
"Even for the Youtubers who manage to be entertaining, it doesn't change the fact that their entire business model is based around being able to monetize some else's work." - Again, check my last point. This logic basically applies to any job in existence. If someone posted a movie on YouTube and ran ads, then yes, that would be blatant stealing. Playing a game requires input from the player; it is a tool, much like a chessboard or a laptop. Should someone making a Chess video on YouTube pay a cut to the guy who invented Chess or his family, and the company who made the Laptop they're using? No; they've already payed those companies, and payed for the right to use their tools.
"While it sucks for the people who are out of work, job security isn't guaranteed in traditional employment venues, much less something as new and experimental as Youtube. But I do agree that if you're spending hours a day on something to support yourself, it's not free time." - No, you're right. Having a job on YouTube is quite risky, but that doesn't mean I agree with anyone who says that they should lose their jobs. If they do in the end, then that's a shame, but why would you actively want a huge amount of people to suddenly become unemployed?
"Your example is really, really bad. Let me give you a better one, that's more relevant to this situation. Imagine a user purchases a copy of 50 Shades of Grade and through a series of videos, reads aloud large portions of it on camera while intermittently showing drawings he or she has made for certain scenes. Did they put a lot of work into this? Absolutely. Should they be able to make money off it? Absolutely not." - No, but that's because its a non interactive form of media. The reader of a book or viewer of a film cant influence what happens, they are merely a spectator. Giving that experience to someone else while charging for it is blatant stealing. A game requires the player to make their own choices, however small they may be. I would also argue that if someone was showing off their artwork and reading relevant areas of text from the book that it is fair that they make money off of it. They would only be making money if their contributions were actually good enough that people wanted to see them.
How about instead of someone playing through a game, and showing off the mechanics, they're showing someone how to use a carpenters tool kit? Here's how a hammer or saw works! People can make money off of that, and as such, can also make money off of games.
But these Let's Players do this all on their own accord, without anybody having asked them to do so.
Why on earth does that have any bearing on whether you have a right to be paid for something. Nearly every profession in the modern world didn't exist in the past. At some point, someone just realised they could make money out of something so they started doing it.
I would also argue that if someone was showing off their artwork and reading relevant areas of text from the book that it is fair that they make money off of it.
I agree with that too actually. The problem here is, each example is going to be slightly different but the laws have to make it generalisable. In some cases, the main draw would be the lets player or the narrator (e.g stephen fry reading harry potter). In other cases, the main draw is the source material (e.g if you're the first to upload a full walkthrough of a game, a lot of viewers might just be there for the game itself).
For me, it just comes back to the fact the developers like Phil Fish have relied on the grassroots support for his success. Nintendo or Fifty Shades of Grey didn't. I imagine that's part of the reason why Mojang are happy to let people stream minecraft. Even if the laws can't realistically be made to allow it in the general case, people like Phil Fish owe these channels quite a lot and should have the decency to see that.
Yeah, except you seem to be forgetting the fact that people watching YouTube are more likely to watch the better content, thus meaning those people make more money.
That doesn't change the content quality, just the visual quality. And that's a very subjective issue. But if you're implying people would need money to get good ideas, then it's a shame for mankind.
They're giving you FREE CONTENT to watch. The ads you get on YouTube are NOTHING compared to television, and yet you still whine about someone managing to support themselves financially?
And why do they need to? Don't they already have an income to afford consoles, games, and recording equipment?
Yeah, they do, and then they don't get any views or make money off it. If they DO, its because a substantial number of people disagree with you, and actually enjoy watching it. As I have said before, taking revenue from gaming YouTubers wont remove the terrible videos (They weren't making any money in the first place, why would they stop?), it'll only stop the actual quality content that people needed to put a lot of time into to make (Which they cant afford to do anymore because its not profitable).
Except for the equipment they already own, there's absolutely no money required to do LP's. And if people buy games only to LP them, they entirely miss the point of gaming: play what you like. And people like that are the lowest sellouts, anyway.
Wow, here comes the jealousy again. You do realise that the most popular and viewed YouTubers actually have this as their full time job, right? It's not their 'free time' because without it they'd need to find another job to support themselves. You're basically just saying you want people to lose jobs because you personally don't like they can make money where you cant. How petty is that?
Man, what a pathetic assumption. Think about your own statement for a second. And now tell me: if these people have a job, what the hell do they need money for? As I stated above, they already have their equipment, otherwise they couldn't have started in the first place. And if their job wasn't enough to support themselves, Let's Plays are the last thing to get them in a better position. I wouldn't believe for a second if a Let's Player told me he does his stuff because his job doesn't pay well enough. In that case, he couldn't afford the necessary equipment in the first place.
And that leaves only one so.ution: people take the money because they can, not because they need it. And that's normally called greed.
You're not forced to support it. How about you don't watch their content if its so terrible? By watching it with adblock you're basically confirming that this is the kind of content you want to be made and want to watch, while denying compensation to those that actually put the time and effort into making it. The jealousy of such stances astounds me.
And here you spout nonsense about jealousy again. Of course we're being forced to support it. Google is constantly updating their ad implementations to get rid of AdBlock to ensure their platform remaining profitable. Or, to put it more bluntly: they (and by extension, anyone who places ads on their videos) willingly sell the security and integrity of a user's data to make a buck. And while AdBlock ensures this security, Google and monetizers spit on them for their own profit. If we don't support it by giving up our security, we get locked out (well, they try, but as of yet, they constantly fail), which is an insult to the very foundation on which the world wide web is based on: information for anyone.
I don't think you quite understand how companies or jobs work. People do something they like and put effort into it, and there's a demand for it - so they make money off of it. Companies invest money in a system like YouTube and get it back when they actually get customers and viewers. This is one of the few forms of content where you, the viewer, doesn't need to pay for anything, and yet you think they're being greedy? Just...how?
I stated it above, but once again: people need money for video/recording equipment. But they wouldn't be able to afford it if they didn't already have enough income in the first place. And yet they do pretty much nothing after this initial investment that requires money. Editing software? Already present. Editing effort? Requires effort, but effort doesn't equal value. Uploading to YouTube? Requires bandwidth and a bit of patience, not money. Buying better equipment? Unnecessary, the stuff they do is already good enough if they have views, they can keep it as it is.
Just imagine this logic applied to anything else. I don't think footballers should be paid because they're making loads of money off of someone elses work! Someone else created the idea for the sport and now thousands of people are making money off of their idea? They should all lose their jobs! All jobs rely on material or tools created by someone else before them. An arbitrary chain of compensation doesn't exist for the whole job market, so why should it apply here?
This very idea makes no sense at all. It's based on someone else's idea, but it's not copyrighted. Football is supposed to be played and broadcasted, it's a spectacle that is based on the idea of watching participants compete on the base of its employed rules. And spectators pay for it.
Games are not. You are allowed to use the game as intended. You own a copy, so you may use all content under the rules of the game. But as far as I recall, reproduction, public presentation, and using the copyrighted material of the game to create your own content, is not allowed, unless explicitly stated otherwise. And making a video of a game as you play it while also commentating on it (or not) is a copyright infringement, since you use the game's material to create a video and market that video as your creation. Because otherwise anyone could download and reupload any LP unaltered and just place ads on it, and nobody could complain. But that also falls under copyright infringement, except when Google was behind it.
And besides, everyone pays for tools, and every tool has intened use and purpose. Altering the tool to create your own thing is not intended for most tool in existence..
But these Let's Players do this all on their own accord, without anybody having asked them to do so.
Why on earth does that have any bearing on whether you have a right to be paid for something. Nearly every profession in the modern world didn't exist in the past. At some point, someone just realised they could make money out of something so they started doing it.
Wrong. Professions started due to demand of things that weren't specified, so people came up with an idea, and if people were able to execute this idea, they did. And if it helped satisfy the demand, it was good. That's how professions are made.
Let's Plays are one of many kinds of content that hadn't been in demand until they emerged. Nobody said: "Record yourself playing a game! Oh, and talk about it while you're at it!" So, LP'ers are based on the idea of creating content nobody needed. There were gameplay videos out there already, and they did a great job at showing what a game was about.
But other than that, you took it quite out of context.
Wrong. Professions started due to demand of things that weren't specified, so people came up with an idea, and if people were able to execute this idea, they did. And if it helped satisfy the demand, it was good. That's how professions are made.
But other than that, you took it quite out of context.
I don't think that's true at all. I think professions are invented out of thin air all the time. (obviously sometimes there's a need as well).
There are so many examples of professions where the person, or people, just realised they could make money out of something that didn't already exist.
Mouth wash. (debatable) There's a lot of debate over whether mouth wash has any real benefit. Some think it does, some don't. It was just invented in the 90s because a company realised that people would buy anything that sounds like it's good for them.
Organic Food (debatable), the current scientific consensus on organic food is that it has very little or no overall benefit. Yet millions of middle-class white people have been convinced that it's good for them and they need to spend more on it.
Pet Psychics (not at all debatable). Who in their right mind could claim that this was something that people really needed to happen? Of course it didn't. Some either very deluded or evil people just realised there was something completely unfalsifiable they could use to con gullible people.
Yeah, except you seem to be forgetting the fact that people watching YouTube are more likely to watch the better content, thus meaning those people make more money.
That doesn't change the content quality, just the visual quality. And that's a very subjective issue. But if you're implying people would need money to get good ideas, then it's a shame for mankind.
No. What I'm saying is that in order to actually make money lots of people need to watch your content. Huge amounts of people are not going to watch low quality content. If people do watch it, then its because they want to, and your personal idea of what quality content is doesn't come into the equation, because if millions of people are prepared to watch it, then its good enough for them. People need money to be able to invest a large amount of their time into making quality content. This is simply the reality of the situation.
And why do they need to? Don't they already have an income to afford consoles, games, and recording equipment?
Why do people need jobs? I'm not going to dignify that with an answer. Yes though, it requires a small amount of initial financial input to get going - that doesn't imply mean people don't do it. It happens all the time. Not having a job beforehand doesn't mean not having any money to buy stuff to get you started. You seem to be under the impression that just because people can buy equipment needed to do a job, that they dont need the job. It's called an initial investment.
Except for the equipment they already own, there's absolutely no money required to do LP's. And if people buy games only to LP them, they entirely miss the point of gaming: play what you like. And people like that are the lowest sellouts, anyway.
You don't seem to be grasping this. It's their job The whole point of a job is you put effort and time into doing something to get money, not to spend it. People have jobs relating to all forms of media, it doesn't mean they're "missing the point" or selling out by making money in relation to that media. The only reason loads of them get into doing this as a job anyway is because they enjoy gaming.
Wow, here comes the jealousy again. You do realise that the most popular and viewed YouTubers actually have this as their full time job, right? It's not their 'free time' because without it they'd need to find another job to support themselves. You're basically just saying you want people to lose jobs because you personally don't like they can make money where you cant. How petty is that?
Man, what a pathetic assumption. Think about your own statement for a second. And now tell me: if these people have a job, what the hell do they need money for? As I stated above, they already have their equipment, otherwise they couldn't have started in the first place. And if their job wasn't enough to support themselves, Let's Plays are the last thing to get them in a better position. I wouldn't believe for a second if a Let's Player told me he does his stuff because his job doesn't pay well enough. In that case, he couldn't afford the necessary equipment in the first place. And that leaves only one solution: people take the money because they can, not because they need it. And that's normally called greed.
They don't have another job; that's what I meant when I said that making YouTube videos was "their full time job". I never said anything about their jobs not being enough to support themselves, I said losing their jobs would affect them. You do also realise that buying the initial equipment isn't that much of an investment right? People could even get a loan for the money to start out. For many professional YouTubers making videos is their full time job. They don't have another job. People earning more money than they need is greedy? I'm sorry, but I can bet your parents do that as well. It's quite common here in the first world. It might seem greedy, but it hardly only applies to YouTubers.
You're not forced to support it. How about you don't watch their content if its so terrible? By watching it with adblock you're basically confirming that this is the kind of content you want to be made and want to watch, while denying compensation to those that actually put the time and effort into making it. The jealousy of such stances astounds me.
And here you spout nonsense about jealousy again. Of course we're being forced to support it. Google is constantly updating their ad implementations to get rid of AdBlock to ensure their platform remaining profitable. Or, to put it more bluntly: they (and by extension, anyone who places ads on their videos) willingly sell the security and integrity of a user's data to make a buck. And while AdBlock ensures this security, Google and monetizers spit on them for their own profit. If we don't support it by giving up our security, we get locked out (well, they try, but as of yet, they constantly fail), which is an insult to the very foundation on which the world wide web is based on: information for anyone.
They. Are. A. Business. They can do WHATEVER they want with their website and stuff that people upload to it within their own terms and conditions. You have no right to demand anything of them. They could make YouTube a payed privilege to watch, and that would be their right. People wouldn't like it, but again, it's their right. Watching videos on YouTube is your choice; no one is forcing you to do it. YouTube however, is theirs, so if you want to watch their stuff, prepare to accept their terms. It happens everywhere; we should just be happy that YouTube is so very lenient.
People need money for video/recording equipment. And yet they do pretty much nothing after this initial investment that requires money. Editing software? Already present. Editing effort? Requires effort, but effort doesn't equal value. Uploading to YouTube? Requires bandwidth and a bit of patience, not money. Buying better equipment? Unnecessary, the stuff they do is already good enough if they have views, they can keep it as it is.
Congratulations. You just described how jobs work. Again, jobs don't usually require money to do, because they're a way to earn money. If you think this particular job happens to be especially easy, then do it yourself. If you think this job serves no use, tell that to the millions of people who enjoy watching this content that these people with jobs make for them.
@Geonjaha News Flash: making videos for YouTube isn't a job, no matter how much you stress the opposite. It's a hobby, and there's no incentive to get paid for it at all. Google only does so to motivate them into placing ads on their videos, which is, once again, an active endangerment of personal data and web security
Besides, you still miss my point completely. People who do LP's have a stable income (or a lot of money to begin with), otherwise they couldn't own a capture device and/or a decent PC to record and edit the videos they make. And people who actually indebted themselves to make money off of YouTube videos are beyond helpless, anyway. Nobody in their right mind would actually think that YouTube videos were a good, or even reliable, source of income to start off with. Trends are simly unpredictable, popularity isn't guaranteed with anything, and Google's YouTube Affiliate program is a long road until you actually start seeing money, sometimes taking several months or even close to a year in extreme cases.
But I can tell you who lives off of YouTube: people who made videos in their free time (as a HOBBY) while having a job. And they quit said job because their videos became popular enough to profit from monetizing them. And that's just sad. Instead of keeping their jobs and doing videos, they decide to just live off of their hobby, and that's not only greedy, but also lazy.
Many countries already have worrying unemployment percentages, and these people simply bathe in their fake fame instead of keeping their jobs, even if the amount of YouTube video makers who can do so is rather low. The point still stands: they don't work.
And no, increasing the quality does NOT automatically require money - that's merely shallow thinking. Good videos have good ideas as their quality aspects, not high video resolution or anything you'd need money for. And if high resolution is deemed that important, then entertainment value is already dead.
goodbyes are a sad part of life but for every end there's a new beggining so one must never stop looking forward to the next dawn
now working at IBM as helpdesk analyst my Backloggery
Wrong. Professions started due to demand of things that weren't specified, so people came up with an idea, and if people were able to execute this idea, they did. And if it helped satisfy the demand, it was good. That's how professions are made.
But other than that, you took it quite out of context.
I don't think that's true at all. I think professions are invented out of thin air all the time. (obviously sometimes there's a need as well).
There are so many examples of professions where the person, or people, just realised they could make money out of something that didn't already exist.
Mouth wash. (debatable) There's a lot of debate over whether mouth wash has any real benefit. Some think it does, some don't. It was just invented in the 90s because a company realised that people would buy anything that sounds like it's good for them.
Organic Food (debatable), the current scientific consensus on organic food is that it has very little or no overall benefit. Yet millions of middle-class white people have been convinced that it's good for them and they need to spend more on it.
Pet Psychics (not at all debatable). Who in their right mind could claim that this was something that people really needed to happen? Of course it didn't. Some either very deluded or evil people just realised there was something completely unfalsifiable they could use to con gullible people.
Well, mouth wash has nothing to do with specific professions. They're part of a dentist's work, regardless of their benefit. Though I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a scam idea (like Diet Coke). Organic Food is something I know very little about, so no comment on that. But pet psychics (at least here in germany) actually help people understand their pets' behaviour better and advise them in how to train them properly. And this profession came into existence because an increasing number of people didn't know why their pets were aggressive, hyperactive, loud, destructive, or whatever other issue possible.
But I cannot deny that there are (sometimes self-proclaimed) professions which only serve to rip off people. Stuff like vacuum salesmen is just bull.
I guess that, nowadays, the vast majority of needs is covered through professions of some sort, so the only things left to profess in are dependant of people being dissatisfied with specific products or lifestyles of our modern times.
And through that logic, it's even possible that YouTube creativity becomes a profession at some point. But since the market for such things lie within the context of advertisement or entertainment, it's too specific and convoluted to call Let's Plays anything close to that. Someday, it might happen, though.
And I'll laugh and cry at the same time once an "LP School/Academy" comes into existence.
What he tweeted was perfectly fair to say. As it is from the perspective of one of the people involved with game streaming controversy, not some opinionated third party, he has a right to state his thoughts.
3DS name: Arminillo
3DS FC: 1118-0310-8459
"The Rich Boy wakes Up, But is Handsome."
-DeviousSnorlax
@Geonjaha News Flash: making videos for YouTube isn't a job, no matter how much you stress the opposite. It's a hobby, and there's no incentive to get paid for it at all. Google only does so to motivate them into placing ads on their videos, which is, once again, an active endangerment of personal data and web security
Besides, you still miss my point completely. People who do LP's have a stable income (or a lot of money to begin with), otherwise they couldn't own a capture device and/or a decent PC to record and edit the videos they make. And people who actually indebted themselves to make money off of YouTube videos are beyond helpless, anyway. Nobody in their right mind would actually think that YouTube videos were a good, or even reliable, source of income to start off with. Trends are simly unpredictable, popularity isn't guaranteed with anything, and Google's YouTube Affiliate program is a long road until you actually start seeing money, sometimes taking several months or even close to a year in extreme cases.
But I can tell you who lives off of YouTube: people who made videos in their free time (as a HOBBY) while having a job. And they quit said job because their videos became popular enough to profit from monetizing them. And that's just sad. Instead of keeping their jobs and doing videos, they decide to just live off of their hobby, and that's not only greedy, but also lazy.
Many countries already have worrying unemployment percentages, and these people simply bathe in their fake fame instead of keeping their jobs, even if the amount of YouTube video makers who can do so is rather low. The point still stands: they don't work.
And no, increasing the quality does NOT automatically require money - that's merely shallow thinking. Good videos have good ideas as their quality aspects, not high video resolution or anything you'd need money for. And if high resolution is deemed that important, then entertainment value is already dead.
It's like you don't even respond to what I'm saying.
1) Look up what a job is. A job is a line of work where someone puts effort into a certain activity to make money for a living. Is that what these people are doing? Yes. Whether or not they enjoy it doesn't factor into the definition. You can argue about what makes a job however much you want in the end, but my point stands. Many professional YouTubers currently don't have any other jobs, and if they do, they make a lot of their income from their videos.
2) No, it isn't an easy job to simply get into in the first place, and many YouTubers only quit their other jobs once they saw the popularity of their videos. If people manage to make a living doing what they love then good on them. You're being naïve if you honestly think their jobs require no effort or somehow make them greedy just because they enjoy them. I feel sorry for you that you shun them simply because they had the luck to have a hobby turn into a full career.
3) With worrying unemployment percentages it's some pretty stupid logic to think we should be taking away more jobs because 'they're just hobbies'. The reality of the situation is that if YouTubers couldn't make money any more they'd have to look for other 'real' jobs, and then there'd be even more competition for everyone else.
I'm done making big posts about this now. It's like talking to a brick wall. Luckily these people will keep their jobs for the time being, and I do really hope that they never have to become unemployed simply because some people are jealous that they managed to turn a passion into a career. It's saddening, really.
Feels like I'm in an echo chamber. I really wish people would just ignore the people they don't like, since it seems they have nothing constructive to say about them.
And yeah, I don't think people should be earning a living off of playing games while saying the first thing that comes to their mind. It's not a skill that benefits society. But I take issue with a lot of stupid jobs out there that I can't believe people actually get paid to do, and unlike them, I actually get to vote with my wallet and ignore this one, and should I mistakenly click on one of their videos, I have adblock to ensure they don't get any more money they don't deserve from me.
But that's not the issue here, at least not to me. A man wants what a lot of game companies would like: complete control over their products. He wants people to pay him for what they do after they've already bought their product. That actually has far worse implications, especially since copyright laws enforcement is screwed up enough as it is.
I'll get more into this when my head stops hurting...
Not to derail the thread or anything but I'm both jealous of and happy that I don't have a game collection that big. I would need detox and an intervention for sure.
Ok...as you were.
Taiko is good for the soul, Hoisa!
Japanese NNID:RyuNiiyamajp
Team Cupcake! 11/15/14
Team Spree! 4/17/19
I'm a Dream Fighter. Perfume is Love, Perfume is Life.
Forums
Topic: Phil Fish opens his mouth... Again.
Posts 41 to 60 of 76
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.