Slashdot Mirror
Sony Attempts To Trademark "Let's Play"
An anonymous reader writes: Why is it that kids these days spend days upon days watching people play video games on Youtube and Twitch when they could spend those days playing games themselves? While we may never find out why, Let's Plays are an established part of today's gaming ecosystem, and the publishers want their piece of the pie. Nintendo lost love by forcefully taking the proceeds from ad revenue on Youtube for its videos, but Sony... never settling for second-best... has recently filed to trademark the phrase. I don't know what's more surprising: Sony's audacity to grab a phrase with recorded usage as far back as 2007... or that EA didn't think of it first.
While I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure that "Let's play" by itself is pretty much impossible to trademark due to the basic rules of getting a trademark (as put by Wikipedia), though they might be able to claim it in the form of a particular logo incorporating the words...which wouldn't let them go after Let's Plays but might let them start sponsoring/branding their own Let's Play group.
Everything must be owned, including common words and phrases. Otherwise someone might be making money off of it and it wouldn't be us!!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
They will just have to change it to 'Lets PAY!'.
Net's pay?
I think that it can make sense to trademark a logo, with an specific font, colors and design that says "Let's Play", but trademarking the "word phrase" should not be valid.
This is really no different than pro/college football/basketball etc. Lots of peeps can't play for one reason or another so they watch someone else play who is good. It has been this way for thousands of years. Only real difference is that you can sit at home instead of walking down to the Coliseum.
The term actually came from Something Awful forums and the "Lets play" threads where they'd take turns playing a game and posting the results. Dwarf fortress "succession" games would be the cannonical example here.
Sony has had no role in this, and they are trademarking something they have no right to.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I was thinking of this the other day... if they call it "let's play" it's pretty much incredibly narcissistic, disingenuous, or both. I know these videos have their place in society and some of them are even instructional, but by and large it's just the pointless wasted time of one person with a crowd of foreign spies, pedophiles, and sociopaths looking for inspiration. If only one person is playing, it's not, "let's play", but, "I'm going to play and you're going to reinforce my fragile ego"
It can and will get trademarked. The entire intellectual property system is flawed beyond reason.
Except the trademark applied for is a standard character format trademark which protects the actual phrase regardless of the particular font, color, design, etc. Sony is literally trying to get a trademark that will allow them to sue anyone who uses the phrase "Let's Play" for "Electronic transmission and streaming of video games via global and local computer networks; streaming of audio, visual, and audiovisual material via global and local computer networks."
There is nothing ambiguous and the only idiot is the one who is assuming that they're not doing what the application says they're doing; you.
Have you ever seen a let's play video? This are people who can't even be bothered to learn the game they're playing, what makes you think they'll ever try and understand something like trademark law?
And, it's worth noting, Let's Play IS trademarked already. By multiple companies for multiple reasons. It's owned by Del Monte, Sony, Blank Generation, T.P. Mills Company, Esparza Advertising, Info-Man Referral Services, Erica Leonard, Hasbro, Safeway, The Sports Authority, Trion World Network, "Regnier, Pady" (someone's name?), Let's Play Sports, Nabisco, JAKKS Pacific, another collection of names, M2 Polymer Technologies, Bally Gaming, Coliseum Entertainment, and that's just the first page of 234 separate marks!
So, yeah, who cares? Let's Play has been trademarked. A ton. And it hasn't stopped terrible people from posting terrible videos of their terrible gameplay. The worst that could happen is that Sony might make it possible to use YouTube without getting recommendations for idiots playing games.
...or whatever his name is: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kyle-samia-0033a253
I am not a lawyer, but if someone used LaBeouf's video to sell shoes, I imagine they would in fact be liable to Nike.
In this case the trademark statement covers "Electronic transmission and streaming of video games via global and local computer networks; streaming of audio, visual, and audiovisual material via global and local computer networks", which does sound like it could cover Let's Play videos as we know them. That would depend of course on how exactly Sony uses the mark.
Let's Plays are the video game nerd's version of the selfie. They're the self-centered, annoying posts that you wish people would goddamn stop making and the reason that most people on this website avoid Facebook and Twitter.
Think about it - who wants to look at your average nerd? No one. So how can a nerd post a video that makes them the center of attention and trick people into watching when they otherwise lead entirely uninteresting, bland lives? By playing a video game.
Let's Plays are just nerd selfies and they're just as vapid and useless as any other selfie.
"Non-binding action" was sent back in December, which is generally USPTO for fuck off.
>Why is it that kids these days spend days upon days watching people play video games
Yeah, nothing at all like prior generation back through time immemorial watching football on tv, boxing, ... the Roman Coliseum...
Does anybody at slashdot own a WATCH?
Yeah, sounds like *they* are the ones with fragile egos - get over yourself. People enjoy watching other people do things well; sports, hobbies or just about anything that takes skill and practice. Some people like to watch pro sports players, some people like to watch professional soldiers (military docs) some people want to watch a guy play that game they just couldn't beat as a kid.
Why is it so personally offensive to you that somebody would want to do that? Are you upset that nobody watches you stream your favourite hobby?
by robots (brainwashed humans) to do the "right" thing - every opportunity to increase profit and protect one's right about "property" needs to be realized. Hilarious happenings can be witnessed - enjoy! Who are the individuals doing this, so they can be applauded and admired?
Why is it that kids these days spend days upon days watching people play video games on Youtube and Twitch when they could spend those days playing games themselves? While we may never find out why
Why is it that kids and adults these days spend days upon days watching people play sports games on TV and Cable when they could spend those days playing sports games themselves? While we may never find out why
Back in the 1980s, Californian software company Epyx was said to own the trademark "Games" for anything video game / computer game related. They released titles like Summer Games, Winter Games, World Games, California Games -- all of these to great success. I do not know whether they actually ever sued anyone -- there were titles like "Eskimo Games" and "Alternative World Games" from other companies -- but they sure prevented anyone else from releasing Olympics-related sports games with any mention of "Games" in it. Epyx' final titles making use of the trademark were "The Games: Winter Edition" and "The Games: Summer Edition", again receiving much attention, but with many key artists leaving for Electronic Arts, Epyx decline was inevitable. The company soon went bankrupt and never recovered.
Make sure you get the mark correctly here. This isn't a copyright, it is a trademark issue and something that is decidedly very different. It is really silly to confuse intellectual property as if it is all one and the same.
Then again, I've seen even supposedly competent lawyers screw the terms up and even misapply one kind of law with another.
It all depends on what Sony plans on doing with the phrase that will determine just how silly or useful the trademark will become. If Sony is doing to be adding hooks into their consoles to encourage YouTubers to make videos of games on those consoles as some sort of special console feature.... I'd be very supportive of the idea. The one click hooks that Mojang put into Minecraft (to give an example) that allows content to be streamed directly to Twitch could be expanded upon and simply installed by default into the next upgrade of the PlayStation line for all games played on that console. Calling that the Sony Let's Play service would be a really good idea and a real selling point in the console industry.
Using it to shut down other more inventive Let's Play content developers on the other hand is likely not going to work out so well.
INTA says that:
"Generic terms are common words or terms, often found in the dictionary, that identify products and services and are not specific to any particular source. It is not possible to register as a trademark a term that is generic for the goods and/or services identified in the application. If a trademark becomes generic, often as a result of improper use, rights in the mark may no longer be enforceable."
If lets play isn't a generic term used when doing "Electronic transmission and streaming of video games via global and local computer networks; streaming of audio, visual, and audiovisual material via global and local computer networks" then I don't know what is. People stream and transmit video game videos and label them as "lets play" and aren't referring to any particular source when they do so.
Someone please explain to me how I am wrong.
It's probably easier to explain why people watch other people play instead of doing it themselves: Because it's a totally passive "activity". Earlier generations may have chilled out more often dozing off in front of a TV. The current generation is less used to watching conventional TV than to "video clip streaming", so it seems plausible they doze off in front of a youtube channel more likely. It doesn't really matter what it shows, as long as they don't have to do anything.
Another factor could simply be costs: It's cheaper to watch somebody play game X than buying it to play yourself. If game X is something kids think they need to able to talk about, watching somebody play is the cheaper substitute.
But one thing that really puzzles me: Why are they watching average to below-average players? One would think that watching somebody play would be more fun if that person is especially good at it. From the samples I looked at, the most popular "let's play"ers are not at all talented...
Antonio Banderas and Columbia Pictures might has something to say about this also...
--- Mercutio was right.
.
If Sony is doing to be adding hooks into their consoles to encourage YouTubers to make videos of games on those consoles as some sort of special console feature.... I'd be very supportive of the idea. The one click hooks that Mojang put into Minecraft (to give an example) that allows content to be streamed directly to Twitch could be expanded upon and simply installed by default into the next upgrade of the PlayStation line for all games played on that console.
The PS4 has had the ability to stream to Twitch and Ustream since the Launch of the PS4..in November of 2013. Where the hell have you been to NOT know this? Living in the PC Gaming Ghetto?
I believe you mean et's Pay
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It all depends on what Sony plans on doing
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
People honestly think $ony would seriously try and see this through? As a whole, they're not stupid. They pay for good lawyers. They know the culture behind the "Let's Play" phrase.
This is nothing but an attention grab so people see their name in the news and talk about them. It keeps their brand fresh in the minds of the public.
Are worth whatever they are...
The fact that it's in use before, doesn't mean that they can't get a trademark, however, it will seriously limit their ability to defend it.
Basically they will be able to add a "tm" on it, and nobody else will.
But they will not be able to forbit anyone to use "Let's play" without it.
Alas, it's worth what the paper it's printed on but nothing else...
Judging by Google's n-gram viewer, it appears to have been a terribly popular phrase in the 1950s.
Why is it that kids these days spend days upon days watching people play video games on Youtube and Twitch when they could spend those days playing games themselves?
Because you learn from pros by watching them how they play?
Also like any good made movie: it is relaxing to watch it, while it is tough to make it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
...PC Gaming Ghetto...
You've got it confused. You're the one living in the low-rent housing project.
How about if I trademark "Bite Me, Sony!" ??
Its like selling drugs - the first 'L' is free to lure you in for the $$$'s in infringement - kerching!!
You dumb ass.
Most posters around here ain't none too bright. I see a lot of this kind of nonsense. It's sad that they can't parse a simple 9 character string but like to think that they're suddenly lawyers when IP is being discussed.
"Why is it that kids these days spend days upon days watching people play video games on Youtube and Twitch when they could spend those days playing games themselves?"
You could ask this same question of people that watch any type of sport...
Sure. In that case, they can trademark Somy Let's Play.
I believe the HAL 2000 has demonstrated "prior art."
Sony, Oracle, all of these giant shitty corporations trying to rape the people of their culture, commercialize it, and shit all over it need to be boycotted seriously
Laws are often written in such a way as to be open to a number of different interpretations. My Dad's a lawyer, though it's been quite awhile since he's been one by trade, and the things he's described to me... (shudder).
Do you think I give a shit about the Playstation at all?
Besides, what I'm talking about is specifically the application as a sort of legal maneuver and trademarking the term as applied to its consoles, not the technical ability of getting it accomplished. What does Sony currently call their live streaming feature? Yes.... oh enlightened one.... do you know and can explain such things to us ordinary plebes?
Do you think I give a shit about the Playstation at all?
Well then, why suggest that Sony add a livestreaming feature as a default feature (which it already is and has been for over 2 years) unless you gave a shit.
What does Sony currently call their live streaming feature?
They call it simply "Share"
Yes.... oh enlightened one do you know and can explain such things to us ordinary plebes?
By my standards, the average PC gamer, especially those in the UK or Europe, are ignorant plebes that are barely gamers at all. They tend to not know anything about any other gaming besides their tiny niche of it. Whether that niche be The Barrens, Summoners Rift, de_dust or The Warehouse. Or perhaps some Cricket, Soccer or F1 game for the "mates" in the UK. They know zilch about console gaming. In fact their knowledge of consoles seems stuck in 1985 (especially the piracy-happy Euro-gamers)
I've seen all sorts of ignorant statements by the PC Gamers over the years, from PC gamers who claim to be gamers, know games and know technology.
I saw one claim that the PS2's CPU was too slow to keep up with a broadband network connection (giving some math that made no sense at all), and thusly wasn't capable of doing an MMORPG. This statement was made AFTER the PS2 already had TWO. When he was called out on his totally whack math and ignorance, he doubled down and wouldn't admit to not knowing what he was talking about.
I saw one claim that there would never be an MMORPG on a console, also after there were already two. Then when called out, claimed said MMORPG's weren't REAL MMORPG's. That a REAL MMORPG, had to have crafting, guilds, message systems, chat systems....which both of those games had.
I saw another claim that there would never be an MMO on a console because they lacked keyboards. when confronted on the fact that consoles had USB ports for a reason, doubled down and said that keyboards wouldn't work and that those ports weren't for keyboards anyway. It was then pointed out that said keyboard using MMO's already existed on consoles.
I've seen one say something like: "consoles suck because they would never have games like Deus Ex, Half LIfe or X-Com" This was AFTER those 3 games had seen console ports. When it was pointed out that said games were already on consoles, said PC gamer claimed it wasn't true, doubled-down and directly said those 3 games were PC only.
Or another claiming that RTS would never be on consoles....when there had already been RTS's on consoles and that the RTS genre originated on consoles in the first place. The first RTS was designed to make fast paced strategy game for consoles. Herzog Zwei, look it up. It was the game that inspired Westwood to do Dune II.
Or PC gamer magazines former RPG guy, Desslock, who used to call console games "mushroom man games" and his ideas on console games seemed set in 1985 and never updated. He once claimed that the reason he didn't like consoles there were no strategy or RPG games on consoles and that when he looked on the shelves for them he didn't recognize any strategy or RPG titles.
One of his former co-workers actually called him out on this, saying a simple google search would have shown otherwise and he began suggesting titles for him to play. Some time later (maybe 2 years)...Desslocks last column for PC Gamer listed "4 must play RPG's". 3 of them were cross-platform titles and the last was a PS3 only RPG at that time.
Or more recently some dumb PC gamer said that the MOBA genre would NEVER be on consoles. This statement was made AFTER there were MOBAs on consoles.
You've got it confused. You're the one living in the low-rent housing project.
No, you've got it confused. Check the Steam hardware stats sometime. Plenty of PC gamers are using hardware less capable than a PS4. (Seems to be budget laptops) Sure, there's always some guys with more capable rigs, but that's not the masses. The masses are playing games that really don't need much hardware (F2P MOBAS, F2P shooters and WoW) on budget laptops.
Hmm, no. They're the collaborative social playing of a game, together.
What you've described is far more akin to twitch streaming, although people have used misidentified it as a Let's Play.
I think Twitch's tremendous success demonstrates that although you may not be part of that market, there's a clear market for people wanting to watch people play games.
Depressing. When I grew up, we took turns playing because there were only one computer in the house. Nobody wanted to just watch the others play - always the fight for more time. Something wrong with these kids?