Jump to content
IGNORED

Copyright strikes on Retro game Youtube vids - Paul Andrews?


Clipper
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wonder if Pete approves of doxxing threats and Chinnyvision comparing Paul Andrews to an egg all over twitter.

 

I saw that Vega cutting cheese video. It was a good chance for Larry etc to really stick it to those people who have defrauded people  of 500k much in the style of his ‘Fact Hunt’ videos

 

Instead, look, it cuts cheese lolz!

 

Next you’ll be attacking people with autism on twitter like RetroLaird.....

 

oh wait....

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, maryliddon said:

Hey Anstream people on this thread.

 

Are any of the Horace games on your platform?

 

One of your directors, Darren Melbourne, is also in business with Andrews for The C64 project so the rights shouldn’t be an issue.

 

 

Yeah we have Horace goes Skiing online and we have licensed the others so they will be up eventually. 

Actually might check the stats when I get into the office to see if this whole shitstorm has encouraged more people to try it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Rex Grossman said:

LOL at retrogaming YouTubers acting like it’s the Crips and the Bloods or some shit.

 

You know what, this exactly sums up the whole thing.

 

I would get it if the argument was really down to the potential threat of "copyright infringement" in retro gaming. Things like games being taken down because we now have licence holders, including IP trolls, which is now threatening the opportunity to play and experience those games we grew up with. 

 

But no, @peteprodge's incessant replies in this thread shows exactly what this is all about. A bunch of fucking niche retro gaming YouTubers shitting their pants over potentially losing money from their digital begging... sorry... Patreon accounts. It's not about the threat of losing access to retro games, because even Paul Andrews has stated he's not interested in taking down games or stopping people using his IP in new games, as long as the license fee is paid to a charity.  Because what happens if all the other IP holders that licensed their content to the likes of Antstream started saying "you know what, want a cut of your Patreon money" (like Nintendo was trying to do) then these retrogaming Youtubers have fuck all income available. 

 

I used to really like ChinnyVision's videos. Sure, he was a bit boring sometimes, but he really liked his retro games. But he did a live stream (which he's never done before) over the weekend which was basically a rant at not just Paul Andrews but parts of the community that will "buy any old crap with a spectrum or commodore logo on it". ChinnyVision has stated he doesn't make much money from Patreon, but the money he does make he says funds him buying retro hardware and software. Likewise, Octavius Kitten has said that the Patreon funds are her only source of income. Funny how much of a shitstorm is made when that is threatened, eh? Not so much about the threat of IP holders removing those games though....

 

But what's really sad is how these retrogaming YouTubers (and I'll sort of include @peteprodge in that list, seeing as the only times he mostly posts on here is promoting his YouTube videos or shitting up this thread) are now turning on each other. Because, let's face it folks, there's only so much Patreon money out there. Best to take up sides, stir up a bit of drama in the hope of getting a bit more cash so you can buy a fucking BBC Micro.

 

This tweet totally sums it up

 

 

Reheated Pixels ( @peteprodge's twitter handle) essentially grassing up another Retro Youtuber for "copyright infringement" with another retro YouTuber circle jerking the whole thing. Yet the funny thing is that at least George Cropper/Bum is trying  to keep the retro Spectrum scene alive by publishing some games. Sure, Konami or whoever, might say to him "remove those games", but George has stated previously he makes absolutely zero profit on this. He does it because he loves the Spectrum.

 

And yet here's a couple of clowns grassing him up who've done the total sum of fuck all in terms of creating or publishing retro games. Instead, happy to make videos and take as much of that sweet, sweet digital begging money as possible. Best to protect that as much as possible, eh guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, peteprodge said:

If Paul Andrews can get away with this questionable IP claim, then there's no doubt he can go after anyone of us.

 

He's been demanding WOS take down screenshots and inlay scans of Mel Croucher's games. Fair enough if it was the actual games, but screenshots and inlays are fair use.

 

 

 

 

Andrews hasn't taken down anything from Pixel Productions, Artic, (original) Imagine, Ocean or Melbourne House.

 

Mel Croucher wanted the Automata titles removed because Lee Fogarty was being a dick:

fogartynamesmelcroucher.png

 

 

36 minutes ago, gone fishin' said:

Sure, Konami or whoever, might say to him "remove those games", but George has stated previously he makes absolutely zero profit on this. He does it because he loves the Spectrum.

 

 

All of George Cropper's games are apparently licensed correctly - even Castlevania.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh no @MajorRob is one of those Andrews/Vega/RCL sock puppets (because Paul Andrews didn't famously have a massive fall out with RCL over the Vega+).

 

How DARE you have a different opinion, tell people the real stories behind the bullshit (no, Andrews didn't have the IP removed from WoS and funny how it wasn't removed from specrtrumcomputing or anywhere else for that matter) and not change your twitter avatar to Horace!

 

 

 

Like I said, I really liked ChinnyVision's videos but these tweets are the ramblings of a deluded mad man desperately trying to protect his "retro man cave" fund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, gone fishin' said:
2 minutes ago, gone fishin' said:

oh no @MajorRob is one of those Andrews/Vega/RCL sock puppets (because Paul Andrews didn't famously have a massive fall out with RCL over the Vega+).

 

How DARE you have a different opinion and not change your twitter avatar to Horace!

 

 

Yes, this is me ""sucking up to Andrews" by calling him an ip vulture...

twittervultures.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MajorRob said:

 

Andrews hasn't taken down anything from Pixel Productions, Artic, (original) Imagine, Ocean or Melbourne House.

 

 

This is interesting.

 

Does he own Ocean copyrights as well?

 

Do you know what the extent of his ownership of Melbourne House titles are? Is it just Horace or all MB games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ianinthefuture said:

Ah, the old 'Patreon is begging' schtick. It's been bubbling under the surface here for a while.

 

And with that, I check out.

It's the old "creative should do their shit for free/exposure yo"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, maryliddon said:

 

This is interesting.

 

Does he own Ocean copyrights as well?

 

Do you know what the extent of his ownership of Melbourne House titles are? Is it just Horace or all MB games?

 

They're listed here:  https://subversive.uk/trademarks

 

As for Head Over Heels, Piko own that now (https://store.steampowered.com/publisher/Piko) and Andrews has previously said he works with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks

 

So this is interesting:

 

Quote

All acquisitions are fully backed up by chains of purchase, signed contracts, email chains from prior owners, as well as historical evidence of the full purchase and ownership chains.

 

Sharing information for the Melbourne House IPs would shut down discussion completely but he's currently very resistant at that doing that.

 

I've been talking to people I worked with at Beam and who were at the company when they were purchased by Infogrames and worked on that deal. Their initial reaction is it'd be extremely hard to show that chain for the spectrum era IP for various reasons. That said, this was a long time ago and you'd need the original sale document to be sure.

 

More news soon. I could well end up proving that Paul Andrews does own this IP :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MajorRob said:

 

They're listed here:  https://subversive.uk/trademarks

 

As for Head Over Heels, Piko own that now (https://store.steampowered.com/publisher/Piko) and Andrews has previously said he works with them.

 

Right. I think I can see what the possible path is here. I think it may be from Atari -> Piko -> Andrews

 

Quote

On January 2, 2018, Piko announced via their website that they had closed a catalog acquisition of 60 titles, now owning over 100 IPs. The acquisition considered of mostly original IPs from developers Accolade, Beam Software, GT Interactive, Hasbro Interactive, Infogrames, Legend Entertainment, MicroProse, Ocean Software and Spectrum HoloByte.[4] 

 

And:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20180219101403/https://pikointeractive.com/blog/happy-2018-important-announcements-for-2018-and-the-future/

 

Thanks for that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maryliddon said:

 

Right. I think I can see what the possible path is here. I think it may be from Atari -> Piko -> Andrews

 

 

And:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20180219101403/https://pikointeractive.com/blog/happy-2018-important-announcements-for-2018-and-the-future/

 

Thanks for that

 

No, the Piko IP is separate from Andrews. Piko originally bought up a load of old IP based on them converting Atari ST titles to Atari Jaguar cartridges (e.g. Head over heels, Wizball) or unreleased NES games in order to make new carts for the NES (Way of the Exploding fist).

 

They then decided that digital was a source of revenue for that IP which resulted in the Head over Heels steam release followed by take downs on the game with threats of "we own the IP, we can do what we want". I wouldn't say they're the "good guys" by a long shot. They've licensed the games to Antstream.

 

It looks like Andrews has gone to "Atari" and bought up any other IP Piko don't own - Match Day, Cosmic Wartoad, Horace games etc. It sounds like he's licensed the games to Antstream also. 

 

The thing is, none of these retro YouTubers gave a shit when Piko was throwing their weight around Head over Heels being removed.Yet when Andrews asks for a character to be removed from a YouTube video, but says he's happy for the games to remain online, they lose their shit over it. Why is that? Because it threatens their revenue. No videos about retro video games. No Patreon funds. You can't have a copyright infringement against playing a game on YouTube, because there's no proof how you sourced that game, even if it's been removed. But someone brings in a copyright infringement over using a character, well that means you really can't make videos anymore. And yes, I call it digital begging because despite backing a few YouTube content creators on Patreon previously, it's now getting to the point where it's shite like "buy me a cup of coffee on Ko-fi".

 

Here's a thing. Did any of these retro YouTubers kick off when Antstream launched, because it's absolutely about the monetisation of old gaming IP along with the potential threats of removing old games that comes with it? No, they were promoting Antstream on their channels. Funny that.

 

The guys who are just doing YouTube videos for fun are less and less because these "headline" British retro YouTubers are just toxic. It's absolutely about the money for them. They only give a shit when that source of income is threatened. 

 

Let me also be clear, if people are buying up old IP in order to remove game files because they see a potential source of revenue then I’m absolutely against it. Andrews so far has said he isn’t going to do that. We’ll have to see if that’s the case. If not, then sure, let’s have a go at him about it. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gone fishin' said:

 

 

It looks like Andrews has gone to "Atari" and bought up any other IP Piko don't own - Match Day, Cosmic Wartoad, Horace games etc. It sounds like he's licensed the games to Antstream also. 

 

 

Atari don't think that's what happened, they were very specific in saying I should check with William Tang or Krome.

 

I'm trying in good faith to prove he does own the rights, and that may well result in proving that he does. But right now I'm drawing a blank on direct licensing from Atari which is why I'm trying the Piko route.

 

We'll see what he has to say.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, maryliddon said:

 

Atari don't think that's what happened, they were very specific in saying I should check with William Tang or Krome.

 

I'm trying in good faith to prove he does own the rights, and that may well result in proving that he does. But right now I'm drawing a blank on direct licensing from Atari which is why I'm trying the Piko route.

 

We'll see what he has to say.

 

 

As a separate issue, maybe under the retro gaming rights thread, I personally think Atari have been doing anything to make money, even if it’s selling off 30+ year old IP that they don’t even know if they really own.

 

”Can I buy Head Over Heels?” 

 

“Erm, yeah, sure, give us £500 and we’ll put a disclaimer saying we’re not responsible for proving we own it”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, gone fishin' said:

 

As a separate issue, maybe under the retro gaming rights thread, I personally think Atari have been doing anything to make money, even if it’s selling off 30+ year old IP that they don’t even know if they really own.

 

I agree that they would sell it if they owned it and someone was willing to pay money.

 

They're saying they didn't.

 

Now there is a chance, a realistic one, that they're not aware they sold Horace specifically as it could have been part of a bundle deal (Say all of Beam's intellectual properties). I've asked if that's the case.

 

I'm also very aware that I'm probably wearing the patience very thin of the contact I have in Atari. Can't guarantee I'll get a response

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gone fishin' said:

oh no @MajorRob is one of those Andrews/Vega/RCL sock puppets (because Paul Andrews didn't famously have a massive fall out with RCL over the Vega+).

 

How DARE you have a different opinion, tell people the real stories behind the bullshit (no, Andrews didn't have the IP removed from WoS and funny how it wasn't removed from specrtrumcomputing or anywhere else for that matter) and not change your twitter avatar to Horace!

 

 

Like I said, I really liked ChinnyVision's videos but these tweets are the ramblings of a deluded mad man desperately trying to protect his "retro man cave" fund.

 

Mate, you claimed Retrogaming didn't exist until 5 years ago and were rightly mocked for it.

 

image.png.575e7098dc78da6c09c007842d1358f8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dudley said:

 

Mate, you claimed Retrogaming didn't exist until 5 years ago and were rightly mocked for it.

 

 

Actually if you'd bothered to read the entire exchange you'd know that I said no such thing, and was even responding to someone who also said '"before 'retro-gaming' was a thing" 

 

Quote

me:

"The resurgence of the retro "scene" is 100% due to middle aged men with spare cash buying back the toys of their youth & nothing to do with those who claim to have kept the ip "alive".

Quote

zxguesser:

Who do you think writes the emulators, produces flash storage interfaces, digitises tapes, help people repair/mod their hardware?

Quote

wils_2k:

And have been doing so for over 20 years, before 'retro gaming' was even a thing, let alone the bandwagon it currently is.

 

Quote

me:

Exactly my point. "Retro Gaming" didn't exist for the first 15 of those 20 years, only when thousands of 40-somethings became nostalgic did anything start to have any "value".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maryliddon said:

 

Atari don't think that's what happened, they were very specific in saying I should check with William Tang or Krome.

 

I'm trying in good faith to prove he does own the rights, and that may well result in proving that he does. But right now I'm drawing a blank on direct licensing from Atari which is why I'm trying the Piko route.

 

We'll see what he has to say.

 

 

Is William Tang findable? He seems to have moved away from the industry in the mid 80's.

 

Alfred Milgrom might be a better bet.

 

http://www.ourdigitalheritage.org/archive/playitagain/creators/alfred-milgrom-2/

 



Returning to Australia in 1980, Milgrom and Naomi Besen started Beam Software, the electronic gaming arm with distribution through Melbourne House. The name “BEAM” is an amalgam of their names. Beam became successful enough for Melbourne House to cease book publishing and to concentrate on electronic games.

As director Milgrom took an active interest in all areas of Beam. Milgrom used his book publishing knowledge to secure permission to make a game  based on J.R.R Tolkien’s book the  “The Hobbit” which was to be a massively successful title for the studio. He produced all their early games and was responsible for the design of the inimitable Horace the hero of William Tang’s “Horace” series. Beams in house composer Neil Brennan recalls how Milgrom would suggest possible musical themes for the games and had him researching circus music for one game and traditional Chinese music for another. Beam’s composer also noted Milgrom’s preference for classical music whose copyright had expired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Unofficial Who said:

 

Is William Tang findable? He seems to have moved away from the industry in the mid 80's.

 

Alfred Milgrom might be a better bet.

 

http://www.ourdigitalheritage.org/archive/playitagain/creators/alfred-milgrom-2/

 

 

 

 

William defintely doesn't any rights of the game and I had a chat with Alfred this morning. I used to work at Beam in my twenties :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, MajorRob said:

 

Actually if you'd bothered to read the entire exchange you'd know that I said no such thing, and was even responding to someone who also said '"before 'retro-gaming' was a thing" 

 

 

 

 

I've read it again and the only possible other thing you're saying there was no commercial value in retro gaming before 5 years ago.

 

Which is still just hilarious in its wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dudley said:

 

I've read it again and the only possible other thing you're saying there was no commercial value in retro gaming before 5 years ago.

 

Which is still just hilarious in its wrong.

 

If you don't have the literacy level to understand the use of quotation marks around the terms "Retro Gaming" and "value" then I really can't help you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MajorRob said:

 

If you don't have the literacy level to understand the use of quotation marks around the terms "Retro Gaming" and "value" then I really can't help you!

 

I'm struggling with it tbh. Can you explain more clearly what it is that began five years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.