Jump to content


Is WG NA gonna start going after youtubers for criticizing them?


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

Kehox #21 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 18:42

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 18695 battles
  • 411
  • Member since:
    01-23-2015

View Postthundaluvin, on Jun 05 2018 - 12:31, said:

I have read it! THOROUGHLY!  And as a 5th year law student, working on my JD, this is EXACTLY the language a company uses to justify going after ANYONE who DISPARAGES their reputation! 

9.1 This section relates to any fan web site that you may create or operate regarding any of our Games or Resources (collectively, "Fansites," and each a "Fansite")

This means a website or YT channel that YOU operate that discusses WG products! 

9.3.6 the Fansite will not post material that is disparaging, illegal or infringes on the rights of any third party or that damages (or that might damage) the reputation of Wargaming or of any of the Games; 

expressing the opinion that something is of little worth; derogatory.

 

Layman's terms; talk bad about our product and we will get you!

 

I have no problem with them wanting to protect their product as I rather enjoy it immensely, this "disparaging" language is quite troublesome! 

you should go watch some Claus Kellerman video then .... he should be ban for name and shaming player ... just to give an exemple : '' WOT - The Biggest [edited]Episode 32 ''  ... do you really think that will happpen ??.. no.. let be serious



45_GrabHerBtP_45 #22 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 18:45

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14197 battles
  • 53
  • [RATZ] RATZ
  • Member since:
    06-15-2011

View PostKehox, on Jun 05 2018 - 12:42, said:

you should go watch some Claus Kellerman video then .... he should be ban for name and shaming player ... just to give an exemple : '' WOT - The Biggest [edited]Episode 32 ''  ... do you really think that will happpen ??.. no.. let be serious

 

A lot of Claus's videos have been challenged or flat our demonetized so you're wrong there. He's made videos discussing the abuse youtube has committed.

CapPhrases #23 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 18:45

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7280 battles
  • 3,529
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015

I wouldn't worry about it. dollars to donuts nothing ever comes of it. people will still be allowed to bad mouth the garbage things WG has been putting out as of late.

free speech

fair use

going after people for saying mean things will get them absolutely destroyed by the gaming community at large and it just makes a risk of them losing MORE money. it'd be a stupid decision so don't worry



thundaluvin #24 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 18:51

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 23049 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    04-20-2015

View PostKehox, on Jun 05 2018 - 18:42, said:

you should go watch some Claus Kellerman video then .... he should be ban for name and shaming player ... just to give an exemple : '' WOT - The Biggest [edited]Episode 32 ''  ... do you really think that will happpen ??.. no.. let be serious

 

I watch Claus every day and quite enjoy his take and commentary a lot. That is why I am concerned. I don't want to see any content creator lose their channel or website for speaking their mind. I also suspect that this is why FemennenlyCV is leaving the WOW NA Community contributor program, though I have no proof, just a hunch. 

 



Kenshin2kx #25 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 18:58

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18624 battles
  • 6,219
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostGonnaBBQU, on Jun 05 2018 - 07:42, said:

 

Who in there right mind would want any part of that.....I foresee others quitting the CC program...I am not affiliated with wargaming at all and there is literally nothing they can do to stop me from making a video criticizing the game if I choose to do so..It falls under fair use law.. Russia laws do not apply in America!!

 

Given the range of what people are willing to do for advantage, money or power of some sort, I have no doubt that there will be those who are willing to abide by the 'new' rules ... besides, on the global level, our NA server and player base is next to invisible in terms of representation and influence ... 

BillT #26 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 18:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27625 battles
  • 5,105
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View Postthundaluvin, on Jun 05 2018 - 11:40, said:

Paragraphs 9 and 10 are a rather troublesome read! Not allowed to say how you feel about WOT, don't like the new premium tank because it's OP, don't like the MM, too bad,  because Criticism can get you banned?! 

 

Paragraph 9 only applies if you sign an agreement for a Fansite license.  So don't do that, and you're safe. You just don't get access to some of their trademarked logos and stuff.

 

Paragraph 10 only applies to content you upload to WG's resources -- like the forums.   It doesn't cover what you upload to YouTube or a website.



Kenshin2kx #27 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:02

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18624 battles
  • 6,219
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postthundaluvin, on Jun 05 2018 - 07:51, said:

 

I watch Claus every day and quite enjoy his take and commentary a lot. That is why I am concerned. I don't want to see any content creator lose their channel or website for speaking their mind. I also suspect that this is why FemennenlyCV is leaving the WOW NA Community contributor program, though I have no proof, just a hunch. 

 

 

Here is my guess ... WG will up the perks for the CC program, but in so doing, set the expectation for 'reasonable' gaming coverage.  I am thinking that WG will support the CC that can balance game PR with the publics hunger for information as it relates to the game.  Say, closer to a QuickBaby as opposed to the Foche of old.

BillT #28 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27625 battles
  • 5,105
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View Postthundaluvin, on Jun 05 2018 - 12:31, said:

 

 

I have read it! THOROUGHLY!  And as a 5th year law student, working on my JD, this is EXACTLY the language a company uses to justify going after ANYONE who DISPARAGES their reputation! 

 

 9.1 This section relates to any fan web site that you may create or operate regarding any of our Games or Resources (collectively, "Fansites," and each a "Fansite" )

 

This means a website or YT channel that YOU operate that discusses WG products! 

 

 

You're well on your way to becoming a lawyer, since you omitted crucial parts of the contract to benefit your argument.

 

Here's the complete context.

Block Quote

 

9. Fan Websites

9.1 This section relates to any fan web site that you may create or operate regarding any of our Games or Resources (collectively, "Fansites," and each a "Fansite" ).

9.2 At some of our Sites we expressly designate certain Content, such as Wargaming game-related images, graphics or artwork and trademarks, as being "for fansite use" (for example see: https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/announcements/world-tanks-fansite-kit/). In this EULA we refer to this specifically designated Content as "Fansite Content".

9.3 Subject to the terms and conditions herein, Wargaming grants you a non-exclusive, revocable, personal, non-transferable and limited license to reproduce and display Fansite Content on Fansites owned and operated by you and solely for non-commercial purposes. This license is further conditional upon you complying with the following provisions:

9.3.1 you acknowledge and agree that Wargaming retains ownership of the Fansite Content, and any and all derivative works thereof, and has the right to amend, delete, add to or otherwise modify, or to revoke the foregoing license with respect to, any items of Fansite Content at any time;

 
Notice 9.3 (emphasis mine).  If you create a fansite, you may choose to download the special content they offer, and if you do, the remainder of the terms in 9.3 apply to you through the implicit licensing agreement.   If you don't download or use that special content, they have no control of your site.

 

Show this to some of your professors if you don't believe me.



sleeper_agent #29 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29322 battles
  • 2,710
  • Member since:
    06-19-2013

I hope all the rage trashers get warned to keep it civil and then banned.

 

WoT is a great game and only getting better.



Badkarma #30 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 32213 battles
  • 1,098
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostBillT, on Jun 05 2018 - 19:09, said:

 

You're well on your way to becoming a lawyer, since you omitted crucial parts of the contract to benefit your argument.

 

Here's the complete context.

 
Notice 9.3 (emphasis mine).  If you create a fansite, you may choose to download the special content they offer, and if you do, the remainder of the terms in 9.3 apply to you through the implicit licensing agreement.   If you don't download or use that special content, they have no control of your site.

 

Show this to some of your professors if you don't believe me.

We heard you the first time...no need to post twice Sparky. But you are correct.



CabbageMechanic #31 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:18

    Senior Community Manager

  • Administrator
  • 9280 battles
  • 8,388,607
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010

It is unfortunate that there is some very poor reporting being done, because this section of the EULA is not new and will not change how we treat anyone.  Here is a link to the 2015 EULA which contains the same language.  

Regarding the SirFoch incident, that was sparked by an erroneous and regrettable statement made by an employee who had neither the authority nor ability to go through with placing copyright strikes on anyone.  It has never been and will never be our policy to make copyright strikes against content creators, and we have directly apologized for one of our staff making the implication.

The section of the EULA currently being discussed is aimed specifically at giving us properly codified recourse against "fan" sites who use WoT logos/other things alongside other content that we might find objectionable.  To use examples that have actually happened, neo-Nazi propaganda and pornography.  We have not and will continue to not take any such actions against legitimate fansites who happen to criticize Wargaming.

To anyone who thinks we make a habit of exercising censorship against critical viewpoints, I encourage you to spend literally any time at all in this General Discussion forum.  We remove and sanction posts that violate forum rules (Mainly inappropriate language, incitement of harassment, and people who wear socks with sandals), but critical opinions are fair game.

As always, we appreciate your feedback and hope to see you on the battlefield.

CM


Edited by CabbageMechanic, Jun 05 2018 - 19:22.


Kehox #32 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:21

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 18695 battles
  • 411
  • Member since:
    01-23-2015

 We remove and sanction posts that violate forum rules people who wear socks with sandals

 

im offended by your statement... i do have sock with my sandal :O ... 

 

( joking )

 

Thnx cabbage for clarify the situation... 


Edited by Kehox, Jun 05 2018 - 19:23.


CapPhrases #33 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:25

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7280 battles
  • 3,529
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015

View PostCabbageMechanic, on Jun 05 2018 - 13:18, said:

It is unfortunate that there is some very poor reporting being done, because this section of the EULA is not new and will not change how we treat anyone.  Here is a link to the 2015 EULA which contains the same language.  

Regarding the SirFoch incident, that was sparked by an erroneous and regrettable statement made by an employee who had neither the authority nor ability to go through with placing copyright strikes on anyone.  It has never been and will never be our policy to make copyright strikes against content creators, and we have directly apologized for one of our staff making the implication.

The section of the EULA currently being discussed is aimed specifically at giving us properly codified recourse against "fan" sites who use WoT logos/other things alongside other content that we might find objectionable.  To use examples that have actually happened, neo-Nazi propaganda and pornography.  We have not and will continue to not take any such actions against legitimate fansites who happen to criticize Wargaming.

To anyone who thinks we make a habit of exercising censorship against critical viewpoints, I encourage you to spend literally any time at all in this General Discussion forum.  We remove and sanction posts that violate forum rules (Mainly inappropriate language, incitement of harassment, and people who wear socks with sandals), but critical opinions are fair game.

As always, we appreciate your feedback and hope to see you on the battlefield.

CM

 

well done for cabbage coming in for clarifying :medal:

Verblonde #34 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:29

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17996 battles
  • 2,978
  • [FUNTB] FUNTB
  • Member since:
    02-08-2015

View PostCabbageMechanic, on Jun 05 2018 - 13:18, said:


<snip> people who wear socks with sandals) <snip>
 

 

I, for one, welcome this focus on an abomination that has plagued these lands for too long...!



Verblonde #35 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:29

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17996 battles
  • 2,978
  • [FUNTB] FUNTB
  • Member since:
    02-08-2015
(oh yes - thanks also for the clarification!)

sleeper_agent #36 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:29

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 29322 battles
  • 2,710
  • Member since:
    06-19-2013

View PostCabbageMechanic, on Jun 05 2018 - 13:18, said:

It is unfortunate that there is some very poor reporting being done, because this section of the EULA is not new and will not change how we treat anyone.  Here is a link to the 2015 EULA which contains the same language.  

Regarding the SirFoch incident, that was sparked by an erroneous and regrettable statement made by an employee who had neither the authority nor ability to go through with placing copyright strikes on anyone.  It has never been and will never be our policy to make copyright strikes against content creators, and we have directly apologized for one of our staff making the implication.

The section of the EULA currently being discussed is aimed specifically at giving us properly codified recourse against "fan" sites who use WoT logos/other things alongside other content that we might find objectionable.  To use examples that have actually happened, neo-Nazi propaganda and pornography.  We have not and will continue to not take any such actions against legitimate fansites who happen to criticize Wargaming.

To anyone who thinks we make a habit of exercising censorship against critical viewpoints, I encourage you to spend literally any time at all in this General Discussion forum.  We remove and sanction posts that violate forum rules (Mainly inappropriate language, incitement of harassment, and people who wear socks with sandals), but critical opinions are fair game.

As always, we appreciate your feedback and hope to see you on the battlefield.

CM

 

This message demonstrates the class act WG displays towards its base and players as a whole. They are too lenient with some perhaps but draw the line firmly at what is acceptable and what is not.

 

Cheers Cabbage



__WarChild__ #37 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:39

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 31654 battles
  • 5,716
  • [OPIC] OPIC
  • Member since:
    06-03-2017

It's hard not to like Cabbage... :honoring:

 

 

Meathead on the other hand... :playing:



Frog_Killer #38 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:40

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 345 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    05-29-2012

View PostCabbageMechanic, on Jun 05 2018 - 18:18, said:

It is unfortunate that there is some very poor reporting being done, because this section of the EULA is not new and will not change how we treat anyone.  Here is a link to the 2015 EULA which contains the same language.  

Regarding the SirFoch incident, that was sparked by an erroneous and regrettable statement made by an employee who had neither the authority nor ability to go through with placing copyright strikes on anyone.  It has never been and will never be our policy to make copyright strikes against content creators, and we have directly apologized for one of our staff making the implication.

The section of the EULA currently being discussed is aimed specifically at giving us properly codified recourse against "fan" sites who use WoT logos/other things alongside other content that we might find objectionable.  To use examples that have actually happened, neo-Nazi propaganda and pornography.  We have not and will continue to not take any such actions against legitimate fansites who happen to criticize Wargaming.

To anyone who thinks we make a habit of exercising censorship against critical viewpoints, I encourage you to spend literally any time at all in this General Discussion forum.  We remove and sanction posts that violate forum rules (Mainly inappropriate language, incitement of harassment, and people who wear socks with sandals), but critical opinions are fair game.

As always, we appreciate your feedback and hope to see you on the battlefield.

CM

 

​Yes, thanks for that. 

MeatheadMilitia #39 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:49

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14879 battles
  • 121
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View Post__WarChild__, on Jun 05 2018 - 18:39, said:

It's hard not to like Cabbage... :honoring:

 

 

Meathead on the other hand... :playing:

 

I logged in just to say this: 

That's messed up. :(

*Tanker Vanish* :hiding:

Isola_di_Fano #40 Posted Jun 05 2018 - 19:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 24367 battles
  • 4,252
  • Member since:
    11-05-2012

View PostTsarCidron, on Jun 05 2018 - 12:24, said:

They want us to stop complaining...  Makes sense.   Best way to get us to stop complaining however, is to stop giving us reasons !!

 

This makes sense, hence it is irrelevant (WG logic) ...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users