# Nintendo claiming ownership on Youtube videos featuring their product



## Guild McCommunist (May 16, 2013)

Ah, the wonderful world of Youtube. For many it has provided one of the most innovative new careers in modern history, being able to do your own pet project, such as a Let's Play series, and be able to get paid for it. This is thanks to Google's AdSense, a program which gives Youtubers money for the ads on their videos. For many, this makes up their living, especially the frequent Let's Play series by many Youtubers. Now, however, it seems avoiding to play Nintendo games for Youtube is a safe bet, as Nintendo is beginning to crack down and claim ownership on videos featuring their games.

By claiming ownership, videos featuring their games get all their ad money sent to Nintendo instead of the creator. An example is Youtuber Zack Scott, who is currently doing a Let's Play of Nintendo's recently released Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon. This report is also backed by Mike Bithel, creator of indie game Thomas Was Alone and the hugely popular series of Youtube channels Machinima.

In response, Nintendo issued the following statement:



> "As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database. For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property."


 
A reminder that content ID matches aren't copyright infringement charges, but are still pretty bad. If a video is correctly content ID'd, that means that the owner (Nintendo in this case) controls a lot of aspects of the video, such as when ads play, what countries the video can be shown in, even if it can be shown at all. All the ad revenue from that video goes to the owner as well.

So if you're a LP'er or even use Nintendo game footage, images, or audio for your Youtube videos, it might be best to avoid them for now.

 Source


----------



## The Catboy (May 16, 2013)

Nintendo, this isn't making games, stop dicking around and make games!


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

> *As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database. For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property.*


Not bad news, might be the opposite even. Unlike companies like Sega, Nintendo won't be taking down Youtube videos containing music, footage or any other copyrighted content. What's different now is that they'll replace the YT ad to a Nintendo related one instead. What's so bad about that?
People posting Nintendo property on Youtube don't have to worry as it's not a gray area anymore.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2013)

...pretty dingle-dang stupid if you ask me. I get it that Nintendo _made_ the content that's being filmed, but what about all the editing, and in case of Game Grumps and the likes, the performance of the LP'er himself/herself? That's _his/her_ input, _he/she_ should get a cut for it.

Looks like Nintendo is really desperate not to post a loss this year despite the Wii U blunder. 

_//MasterTrole2013_


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

This is actually a positive thing for users.


----------



## Harsky (May 16, 2013)

This is something I've been wondering about. LPers have always been walking in a grey area where they'll play through an entire game and basically show off the ending. I know showing a playthrough of a game is not the same as showing a movie but with story based games, I always wonder what developers/publishers think.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> This is actually a positive thing for users.


*> Users could upload LP's they had to film, edit and generally spend time creating and get some cash for their work.*
*> Now users can upload the same LP's to put money in Nintendo's pocket.*

Yeah, that's good news indeed.

I get it that people are glad they don't just demand the removal of given content, but that still doesn't mean it's all eh-o-kay, dasies and roses. Those videos don't make themselves.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> *> Users could upload LP's they had to film, edit and generally spend time creating and get some cash for their work.*
> *> Now users can upload the same LP's to put money in Nintendo's pocket.*
> 
> Yeah, that's good news indeed.


It is. Nintendo could just take all copyrighted content down. Instead Nintendo allows users to use their copyrighted content in exchange of giving them their revenue. People who wants to make money with copyrighted youtube videos should get a real job.


----------



## Ryupower (May 16, 2013)

many LPer do LPs as a job

so one thing is
that LPer will not get ad revenue for the Nintendo LPs anymore, but Nintendo will get it

I think is only for video over 10min long as well


----------



## Rydian (May 16, 2013)

Eerpow said:


> What's different now is that they'll replace the YT ad to a Nintendo related one instead. What's so bad about that?


No, the ads don't change, but the ad money goes to Nintendo, NOT to the people who uploaded the video.  Like Guild stated, lots of people that do LPs (Pewdie, etc.) literally make their living (that is, _the money they use to buy the food they eat and pay their rent_) from the ads on Youtube.

But they won't be getting it from videos Nintendo does a claim on.  The videos stay up, but Youtube sends the money to Nintendo, not the Youtube account's holder.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> It is. Nintendo could just take all copyrighted content down. Instead Nintendo allows users to use their copyrighted content in exchange of giving them their revenue. People who wants to make money with copyrighted youtube videos should get a real job.


The copyrighted content is their game, not a video recording of their game being played, which is a fraction of the whole content. That's like saying I should give revenue to Coca-Cola if I put a mentos in a coke for kicks and upload a video of the coke-fountain on Youtube.


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> *> Users could upload LP's they had to film, edit and generally spend time creating and get some cash for their work.*
> *> Now users can upload the same LP's to put money in Nintendo's pocket.*
> 
> Yeah, that's good news indeed.
> ...


It only becomes a bad thing if they start doing it with people who edit their content enough, like reviews or funny videos. The only cases where they should take actions is when the user is blatantly ripping content.
Companies almost always were after those who took content directly, not people who makes reviews or fan videos.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> The copyrighted content is their game, not a video recording of their game being played, which is a fraction of the whole content. That's like saying I should give revenue to Coca-Cola if I put a mentos in a coke for kicks and upload a video of the coke-fountain on Youtube.


You paid for the game to be able to play it and keep in your possession. You didn't pay for a sharing license. All images, music in a game are copyrighted and remain property of Nintendo, whether you bought the game or not.


----------



## Joe88 (May 16, 2013)

I will be awaiting the take down notices on a few of my videos I guess


----------



## Gahars (May 16, 2013)

You'd think Nintendo, of all companies, would be able to learn from Sega's mistakes.

Guess not.


----------



## RedCoreZero (May 16, 2013)

Eh, at least they won't take it down?


----------



## gifi4 (May 16, 2013)

This is honestly a dick move by the big N. I somewhat heard about this earlier. I'm watching a let's play of Lego City Undercover (As I don't have nor by the looks of how well the console is holding up, want to own anytime soon) and the person was actually talking about it right before a cut-scene and ended up not finishing up. I'm sure it'll be in the next episode but that's little under 24 hours away =/


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

maniax300 said:


> Eh, at least they won't take it down?


Yes, that's their point.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> You paid for the game to be able to play it and keep in your possession. You didn't pay for a sharing license. All images, music in a game are copyrighted and remain property of Nintendo, whether you bought the game or not.


Hold your horses, pardner. That may very well be, which is why I would not be againts a _50/50 split_, however the LP'ers input, that being the script for a given episode, all the puns, the comedy, the editing, the effects, everything people do to make LP's enjoyable are not without merit. It's not okay to make money of Nintendo's IP's without their express permission, but it's equally not okay for Nintendo to make money off an LP'ers work.


----------



## Harsky (May 16, 2013)

Gahars said:


> You'd think Nintendo, of all companies, would be able to learn from Sega's mistakes.
> 
> Guess not.


But didn't Sega actually request removal of the videos? The only difference in this case is Nintendo allowing the videos to stay up but they're just pocketing the profits from ads displayed on the LPers video.


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> No, the ads don't change, but the ad money goes to Nintendo, NOT to the people who uploaded the video. Like Guild stated, lots of people that do LPs (Pewdie, etc.) literally make their living (that is, _the money they use to buy the food they eat and pay their rent_) from the ads on Youtube.
> 
> But they won't be getting it from videos Nintendo does a claim on. The videos stay up, but Youtube sends the money to Nintendo, not the Youtube account's holder.


I really don't think they would go after LP's making a living considering their pretty chill stance to YT videos compared to other companies. I don't think they suddenly would start making ass moves like that.

Just speculation, but I don't think they would want to bring such negativity upon themselves from people who promotes their games for free.


----------



## Rydian (May 16, 2013)

Eerpow said:


> I really don't think they would go after LP's making a living considering their pretty chill stance to YT videos compared to other companies. I don't think they suddenly would start making ass moves like that.
> 
> Just speculation, but I don't think they would want to bring such negativity upon themselves from people who promotes their games for free.


*Yet here we are.*
http://www.youtube.com/user/ZackScottGames
All the signs of being a professional Youtuber (he even merchandises for crying out loud), and he's one of the _named_ ones that Nintendo did a claim on.  His latest video, one that's specifically categorized (Dark Moon), has 385,000 views.


----------



## Devin (May 16, 2013)

First thought that came to mind;

Shoot, now LPers are going to have to cut videos into even more parts.

A 60 minute LP could now be 6 10 minute LPs. ;-;


----------



## Carnivean (May 16, 2013)

It is their content so they are pretty justified. But it's also just producing negative press for them while not actually fighting a cause of lost income, if anything they are going to get less free exposure than previously as people will avoid nintendo content to ensure they have control over how their video is abused by youtube's ad shit.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Hold your horses, pardner. That may very well be, which is why I would not be againts a _50/50 split_, however the LP'ers input, that being the script for a given episode, all the puns, the comedy, the editing, the effects, everything people do to make LP's enjoyable are not without merit. It's not okay to make money of Nintendo's IP's without their express permission, but it's equally not okay for Nintendo to make money off an LP'ers work.


I agree, so what do you think is the best solution here? Nintendo takes 50% of the ads revenue and the other 50% get the LPers?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2013)

Devin said:


> First thought that came to mind;
> 
> Shoot, now LPers are going to have to cut videos into even more parts.
> 
> A 60 minute LP could now be 6 10 minute LPs. ;-;


Or they'll just start advocating the use of AdBlocks. If they can't earn on their work, neither should anyone else.



WiiUBricker said:


> I agree, so what do you think is the best solution here? Nintendo takes 50% of the ads revenue and the other 50% get the LPers?


I think it would be better than claiming ownership of something they didn't produce and for all intents and purposes, it's fair as all the parties involved earn money that way.


----------



## Devin (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Or they'll just start advocating the use of AdBlocks. If they can't earn on their work, neither should anyone else.


 
If Nintendo's really this money hungry they should at least get a small cut. LPer gets the larger cut, and Ninty a smaller cut for property rights. Not right for them to come out of the blue like this but if they must at least make it fair.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2013)

Devin said:


> If Nintendo's really this money hungry they should at least get a small cut. LPer gets the larger cut, and Ninty a smaller cut for property rights. Not right for them to come out of the blue like this but if they must at least make it fair.


I'm all for that kind of sharing, however this means Nintendo takes _all_ the profits, not a fraction. 

Perhaps this is a particularily weird move for me because where I live, using a fraction of a given product for analytical purposes _(a Let's Play, a review, anything of the sort)_ is considered a part of Fair Use and isn't in any way restricted - all you have to do is mention the original creator.


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> *Yet here we are.*
> http://www.youtube.com/user/ZackScottGames
> All the signs of being a professional Youtuber (he even merchandises for crying out loud), and he's one of the _named_ ones that Nintendo did a claim on. His latest video, one that's specifically categorized (Dark Moon), has 385,000 views.


Well that's shit, hope he can get in touch with them and resolve the situation. For the majority it's not bad news though even if it does have this big negative flipside.

Now, are their going after YT's with vids using edited footage, fan work, short music clips too? Those videos did no damage whatsoever. LP's would sometimes make people not purchase the game, if it's a title like Phoenix Wright for example where there is no point in buying the game after watching a LP, for most people anyways.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2013)

Eerpow said:


> For the majority it's not bad news though even if it does have this big negative flipside.


That depends. The solution Nintendo chose may have a strong impact on the content you view online - professional LP'ers and reviewers will stray away from Nintendo products and play other games instead, not to risk losing resources and time on making something that won't bring them revenue. Some of the stuff you really enjoy watching may just vanish.


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That depends. The solution Nintendo chose may have a strong impact on the content you view online - professional LP'ers and reviewers will stray away from Nintendo products and play other games instead, not to risk losing resources and time on making something that won't bring them revenue. Some of the stuff you really enjoy watching may just vanish.


True in the long run, the negative side of bad publicity will most likely stop them from implementing this so widely, that's what made Sega stop at least.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2013)

Eerpow said:


> True in the long run, the negative side of bad publicity will most likely stop them from implementing this so widely, that's what made Sega stop at least.


Here's for hoping. That being said, we're talking about huge sums of money here. A single LP'er may not earn a whole lot, but half-a-Youtube of LP'ers produce tons of content.

Perhaps people will switch to other services such as Blip, perhaps they'll change their repertoire, perhaps Nintendo will come up with a better proposal - we'll see. As it stands today, this is bitter-sweet news as one kind of injustice is just replaced with another - sharing the revenue seems much more sensible then just taking it away.


----------



## chartube12 (May 16, 2013)

Basically if someone makes a complete video walk through of Nintendo game, the money they would of generated for the ads goes to the Nintendo instead of the hard working individual who made said walk through. Seems like a dick move on Nintendo's part.


----------



## Veho (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps this is a particularily weird move for me because where I live, using a fraction of a given product for analytical purposes _(a Let's Play, a review, anything of the sort)_ is considered a part of Fair Use and isn't in any way restricted - all you have to do is mention the original creator.


A fraction, yes. Around here you're allowed to use up to 20% of the total content that way.


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Here's for hoping. That being said, we're talking about huge sums of money here. A single LP'er may not earn a whole lot, but half-a-Youtube of LP'ers produce tons of content.
> 
> Perhaps people will switch to other services such as Blip, perhaps they'll change their repertoire, perhaps Nintendo will come up with a better proposal - we'll see. As it stands today, this is bitter-sweet news as one kind of injustice is just replaced with another - sharing the revenue seems much more sensible then just taking it away.


Looked further into it and, it's a mess, even some gaming press channels are being swept with the same brush as the other affected users it seems. That's fucked up.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 16, 2013)

There are ways to block video ads. I already installed an adblock for videos on Chrome.


----------



## Kyle Hyde (May 16, 2013)

What a dick move. You would think Nintendo knows some common sense. If you lack money, you don't go on YouTube and take it from your biggest fans...

However, I understand that YouTube approached publishers about this and made the suggestion to make ad revenue from those videos (according to Notch's twitter)


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> There are ways to block video ads. I already did that part for Chrome.


That's not the problem, the problem is people using Youtube as an honest income source and Nintendo putting themselves in a bad relationship with youtubers.


----------



## emigre (May 16, 2013)

Yeah this is a dick move from Nintendo.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 16, 2013)

Well, I kinda wonder if that was really their intend when they became youtube partners.

if it wasn't, then they'll probably deal with it eventually, splicing ad revenue or something.
if it was, they'll probably also realize that this isn't such a good idea, as nintendo content wont be produced anymore.

maybe let's players should set their nintendo videos to private for the moment and then approach nintendo, explaining that unless there is some kind of split on the earnings, the videos will stay off and nobody will waste their time and money on making any new ones, resulting in zero revenue.


----------



## jomaper (May 16, 2013)

Wow... This is just... horrible. And the way they talk like they are doing this for the fans is incredible.


----------



## beta4attack (May 16, 2013)

Wait, from what I understood Nintendo only gets PART of the money they get, not all of it, or did I misunderstand?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> The copyrighted content is their game, not a video recording of their game being played, which is a fraction of the whole content. That's like saying I should give revenue to Coca-Cola if I put a mentos in a coke for kicks and upload a video of the coke-fountain on Youtube.



Wouldn't that get tricky as what coke can copyright/patent/protect as far as IP goes is rather limited by virtue of it being a soft drink? Also might we also get into redundant ingredients at some point -- I could just dye my phosphoric acid brown and bam.*

Anyway an interesting move. Re "but they put effort into editing...." surely it still counts as a derived work and thus it could be said Nintendo is being generous here. That said I thumbed through a couple of 360 manuals (could not be bothered to pull out the old games box) and did not find any mention of such things though where ever DVD and such like tends to tell me not for "lending, broadcast, transmission....".

*animated let's play similar to "what if ?" happened in a film type things.... I think we might have found a new video type.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Anyway an interesting move. Re "but they put effort into editing...." surely it still counts as a derived work and thus it could be said Nintendo is being generous here.


By _"editing"_ I meant all the special effects added to the footage to go with the LP. Have a brief watch of, say, Game Grumps Dead Space 3 Demo episode - it's pure comedy, and a part of that comedy is derrived from the birds fluttering around. Another good example are Jontron videos - most of them include really funny visual stuff added into the footage to make it interesting rather than _"go left, jump up"_ type of a bland LP.

There's also the issue of using the LP'ers likeness _(where applies - some LP'ers include a facecam, for example PewDiePie)_. Is Nintendo going to give them a cut for physically being shown in the video? Because for all intents and purposes, they should.

Plus there's the whole _Fair Use_ thing - they're rarely showing the entire game. A huge amount of content, sufficient enough to question whether or not Fair Use should be applied is only shown in walkthroughs, really.


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

Yeah, there seems to be some sort of mistake when agreeing with Youtube's option to do this, their own partners and press channels are affected too.



> *As such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database.*


That database is picking up on stuff like GameXplains videos.


----------



## Heran Bago (May 16, 2013)

LPers are already making money redistributing other people's content. It should not be someone's primary source of income.


----------



## EvilMakiPR (May 16, 2013)

Dick move by Nintendo I'd say.

Now waiting for Anonymous to Hacks Nintendo XD


----------



## Lestworth (May 16, 2013)

It's kind of interesting that Nintendo themselves are walking the very same gray line that even LP'ers are walking. Considering the fact that the law passed years ago protected these very same people. (Fair-use). Nintendo wants people to still post videos about their games, but they did the exact opposite, if these people who do this for a job can not make revenue, then why in the hell will the bother posting ANY vids for that system? They have effectively blocked future content on youtube, without giving out copyright strikes.

I also completely disagree with the mindset that these people need to find a "real job". These are real jobs, much like what you see on tv. We live in 2013, get with the times.


----------



## The Minecrafter (May 16, 2013)

First, it doesn't seem that bad. I have adblock and I don't upload let's plays, so no problem for me there.
What I think Nintendo should do is to analyze the uploads by channel, and decide what to do with it. A channel that shows some segments of games, but is not going through the entire game should be allowed to continue as before, and receive revenue. Someone who uploads just pure gameplay, basically a video walkthrough, should have all the revenue go to Nintendo, since all the video is showing is the entire game experience broken up into chunks. However, for the people who do LP videos and do a lot of editing, Nintendo should determine how much work the uploader puts into editing it, and share the profits accordingly. So therefore, people that put a lot of effort into editing get some profit out of it, while those that just playthrough the game do not. Anyway, that's what I think Nintendo should do.

Also, don't be stupid Nintendo and block videos from certain countries. That's just stupid. If you are worried, put the age limit filter on it, but don't block the videos.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Plus there's the whole _Fair Use_ thing - they're rarely showing the entire game. A huge amount of content, sufficient enough to question whether or not Fair Use should be applied is only shown in walkthroughs, really.


 

I always thought that pretty much all let's plays are intended to be like a walk through with commentary once they're finished.

The thing where they don't show the entire game is a review.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2013)

Clydefrosch said:


> I always thought that pretty much all let's plays are intended to be like a walk through with commentary once they're finished.
> 
> The thing where they don't show the entire game is a review.


Naw, man - look at _"The Continue Show" (They only play for about a minute or two and then decide whether they'd want to continue plating the game or not, hence the name)_ or _"Game Grumps" (Sometimes they play the whole game, but they often timeskip through the boring parts and it's mostly a "show" rather than a walkthrough)_. Not all Let's Play's entail finishing the game - in fact, I think those that do are pretty boring. An LP should be an enjoyable show, not a bland walkthrough.


----------



## Gahars (May 16, 2013)

The Minecrafter said:


> First, it doesn't seem that bad. I have adblock and I don't upload let's plays, so no problem for me there.


 
Because something has to personally affect you to be a problem?



The Minecrafter said:


> What I think Nintendo should do is to analyze the uploads by channel, and decide what to do with it. A channel that shows some segments of games, but is not going through the entire game should be allowed to continue as before, and receive revenue. Someone who uploads just pure gameplay, basically a video walkthrough, should have all the revenue go to Nintendo, since all the video is showing is the entire game experience broken up into chunks. However, for the people who do LP videos and do a lot of editing, Nintendo should determine how much work the uploader puts into editing it, and share the profits accordingly. So therefore, people that put a lot of effort into editing get some profit out of it, while those that just playthrough the game do not. Anyway, that's what I think Nintendo should do.
> 
> Also, don't be stupid Nintendo and block videos from certain countries. That's just stupid. If you are worried, put the age limit filter on it, but don't block the videos.


 
Because Nintendo has the time and resources to scour every single last video and determine the type of content it offers?


----------



## Chary (May 16, 2013)

At least they aren't taking down the videos. I mean, I watch GameGrumps and Chuggaaconroy. Think of what would happen if Nintendo deleted every one of their videos that featured a Nintendo game!


----------



## Fear Zoa (May 16, 2013)

I'd like to point out that this is literally the exact opposite of what Sony is apparently doing with the PS4. 

It sucks because even when people aren't explicitly playing a Nintendo game, a lot of people still use art/sounds/music from nintendo games. (especially Zelda music) and now they might get in trouble. 

Also why is the Video gaming industry (and the RIAA/MPAA) so entitled, if I record myself driving a car and it happens to be a Toyota. Toyota wouldn't care and they certainly aren't going to hijack the video. (Not yet anyway, if bullshit like this continues then its only a matter of time)


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

Lestworth said:


> I also completely disagree with the mindset that these people need to find a "real job". These are real jobs, much like what you see on tv. We live in 2013, get with the times.


Expect that on TV you need to pay first for what you want to broadcast.


----------



## Rydian (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> Expect that on TV you need to pay first for what you want to broadcast.


I wasn't aware you could pirate Dark Moon, as it's a 3DS game.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> I wasn't aware you could pirate Dark Moon, as it's a 3DS game.


You need to pay for _distribution_ rights.


----------



## Lestworth (May 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> I wasn't aware you could pirate Dark Moon, as it's a 3DS game.


 
I think he's just attempting to back up his claims at all costs regardless of the old school mentality or factual evidence.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 16, 2013)

Fear Zoa said:


> I'd like to point out that this is literally the exact opposite of what Sony is apparently doing with the PS4.
> 
> It sucks because even when people aren't explicitly playing a Nintendo game, a lot of people still use art/sounds/music from nintendo games. (especially Zelda music) and now they might get in trouble.
> 
> Also why is the Video gaming industry (and the RIAA/MPAA) so entitled, if I record myself driving a car and it happens to be a Toyota. Toyota wouldn't care and they certainly aren't going to hijack the video. (Not yet anyway, if bullshit like this continues then its only a matter of time)


 
well, toyota probably does not have and isn't allowed to have intellectual property rights on motorsound, because if they could, then they most likely would try to enforce them. for example, they could ask for extra money from racing game developers or in movies and whatnotall.
I imagine though, at some point, when electric motors become actually usable, they'll add motor soundeffects to make those things more acceptable for... dunno, idiots that think a loud car is something positive. and at that point they might actually be able to patent their distinctive motor sound.


----------



## Rydian (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> You need to pay for _distribution_ rights.


_But they're not distributing the game_, which is why copyright law itself is not being invoked.


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

Fear Zoa said:


> I'd like to point out that this is literally the exact opposite of what Sony is apparently doing with the PS4.
> 
> It sucks because even when people aren't explicitly playing a Nintendo game, a lot of people still use art/sounds/music from nintendo games. (especially Zelda music) and now they might get in trouble.
> 
> Also why is the Video gaming industry (and the RIAA/MPAA) so entitled, if I record myself driving a car and it happens to be a Toyota. Toyota wouldn't care and they certainly aren't going to hijack the video. (Not yet anyway, if bullshit like this continues then its only a matter of time)


What are Sony doing with the PS4? There aren't any LP footage of PS4 games. People directly affected by this might not earn money on these videos unless they're in agreement with Nintendo.
A Toyota isn't digital entertainment you can make available for free through youtube, if it was I guess most of us would have downloaded one already.


----------



## Lestworth (May 16, 2013)

Eerpow said:


> A Toyota isn't digital entertainment you can make available for free through youtube, if it was I guess most of us would have downloaded one already.


Let's be honest here, if we could all 3d download and 3d print a car. I'm pretty sure we would ALL DO IT.


----------



## jomaper (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> You paid for the game to be able to play it and keep in your possession. You didn't pay for a sharing license. All images, music in a game are copyrighted and remain property of Nintendo, whether you bought the game or not.


And what about the rights LPs have over their work? The scripts and edition. It's like saying they will have to pay to Sony too for using Sony Vegas.
This is a really bad move. I bought the 3DS only because I saw reviews and walkthroughs in Youtube, and I'm sure a lot of people do the same thing.


----------



## tbgtbg (May 16, 2013)

Meh, as long as they aren't forcing anything to be taken down, I honestly couldn't care less. Don't like the way youtube does business (and let's be real, this is youtube's "dick move" more than Nintendo's, Nintendo couldn't do jack shit here without youtube going along) put your videos elsewhere. 

Not like anyone's getting ad money from my views anyway. Adblockplus, beeyotches.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> _But they're not distributing the game_, which is why copyright law itself is not being invoked.


eh? It's not about the game per se, it's about distributing videos from the game. The guy above compared this with TV and I said you can't broadcast stuff you don't have the rights to distribute. Movies are being broadcasted in TV because the TV station payed for distribution rights.



jomaper said:


> And what about the rights LPs have over their work? The scripts and edition. It's like saying they will have to pay to Sony too for using Sony Vegas.
> This is a really bad move. I bought the 3DS only because I saw reviews and walkthroughs in Youtube, and I'm sure a lot of people do the same thing.


Please read the few posts beneth the post you have quoted, thank you.


----------



## Rydian (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> eh? It's not about the game per se, it's about distributing videos from the game. The guy above compared this with TV and I said you can't broadcast stuff you don't have the rights to distribute. Movies are being broadcasted in TV because the TV station payed for distribution rights.


That's because the movie itself is what's protected, but it's not so with games.  A video game is not just a video stream (inb4 Metal Gear Solid 4 jokes), which is why Nintendo's taking this action with Youtube.


----------



## jomaper (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> Please read the few posts beneth the post you have quoted, thank you.


I did read them. I just disagree.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 16, 2013)

tbgtbg said:


> Meh, as long as they aren't forcing anything to be taken down, I honestly couldn't care less. Don't like the way youtube does business (and let's be real, this is youtube's "dick move" more than Nintendo's, Nintendo couldn't do jack shit here without youtube going along) put your videos elsewhere.
> 
> Not like anyone's getting ad money from my views anyway. Adblockplus, beeyotches.


 
the problem is, at least for the professional youtube partners, there is no good reason to spend time making nintendo game videos anymore now.
this won't stop newcomers or whatever. but those guys with the 10 million hits per video, they will probably go make sony videos now.



Eerpow said:


> What are Sony doing with the PS4? There aren't any LP footage of PS4 games. People directly affected by this might not earn money on these videos unless they're in agreement with Nintendo.
> A Toyota isn't digital entertainment you can make available for free through youtube, if it was I guess most of us would have downloaded one already.


 
I think they mean the ps4's social share button. The one that automatically uploads a video of what you just did and such.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

jomaper said:


> I did read them. I just disagree.


To what exactly?


----------



## Lestworth (May 16, 2013)

Its still crossing the line of the Fair Use law no matter how you view it. So its still interesting that Nintendo can literately get away with this.  The only videos Nintendo would even be able to claim this on any video is if the video itself has 0 editing, 0 commentary. If it has any sort of commentary from the user who posted the video, they are protected under the Fair use law no matter how you twist it. If people who are targeted, but all under these rules, then they have full rights to fight back to protect the content they created. Nintendo is attempting to wrestle with the lively hoods of 10's of hundred thousands of people, and no one expects people to fight back? Especially since they are even protected from such things from happening? Its like just sitting in front of a train, and expected it to move.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> That's because the movie itself is what's protected, but it's not so with games. A video game is not just a video stream (inb4 Metal Gear Solid 4 jokes), which is why Nintendo's taking this action with Youtube.


But Nintendo is right by claiming other entertainment companies just take down user-generated videos containing their property. Heck, wrestling companies regulary  take down videos recorded by the audience of not broadcasted wrestling events. That's something that is not even ripped from a game.


----------



## Terenigma (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> It is. Nintendo could just take all copyrighted content down. Instead Nintendo allows users to use their copyrighted content in exchange of giving them their revenue. People who wants to make money with copyrighted youtube videos should get a real job.


 
I agree with this line of thinking. If doing this keeps Nintendo alive then I'm all for it, they have made good games and let's face it, the Wii-u is currently on a downward spiral into oblivion and Zelda/Mario wont save it. So, They have turned to youtube to try and get a bit of money back. Half of this forum has probably pirated many nintendo games so I don't think we can really argue with what they are doing.

Honestly, playing video games someone else has made and streaming it so a lot of other people don't have to buy that game is ridiculous, Let alone making money from it. It's things like this that are contributing to the financial crisis that many countries are going through.

20 people make a game -> 1 person buys the game and uploads video of game -> 50 people watch the video instead of buy the game -> 50 less copies of the game are sold -> the 20 people who made game get the money from 1 person instead of 50 -> the 1 guy who bought the game gets the money -> whats wrong with the world.


----------



## Rydian (May 16, 2013)

Backing up is not the same as making it publicly-available.

I do agree that the voices/lines/editing and such are the property of the user though.


----------



## jomaper (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> To what exactly?


I mean, I don't disagree with Nintendo sharing the profit since they do have the rights over the game. But I think it's a dick move to take all of the profit (if that is the case), since all the edition, the script and the rest of the video not being the game itself, is user created content.
I just don't see how you can think this is a positive thing for users, that's all.


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

Clydefrosch said:


> I think they mean the ps4's social share button. the one that automatically uploads a video of what you just did and such


Oh that, it's a limited feature, not something you could do LP with. Sony can't add such a feature with so many different companies being behind the actual content displayed.

I think Nintendo will eventually get in some kind of agreement with the people on youtube that this decision troubles. They're facing problems with their own press currently so it wouldn't surprise me if things get better sooner or later, if not then the many drawbacks will make them change.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

Lestworth said:


> Its still crossing the line of the Fair Use law no matter how you view it. So its still interesting that Nintendo can literately get away with this. The only videos Nintendo would even be able to claim this on any video is if the video itself has 0 editing, 0 commentary. If it has any sort of commentary from the user who posted the video, they are protected under the Fair use law no matter how you twist it. If people who are targeted, but all under these rules, then they have full rights to fight back to protect the content they created. Nintendo is attempting to wrestle with the lively hoods of 10's of hundred thousands of people, and no one expects people to fight back? Especially since they are even protected from such things from happening? Its like just sitting in front of a train, and expected it to move.


How is it crossing the line of the fair-use law? You still can share copyrighted content, just not profit from it. It would cross the line of fair-use law if Nintendo just took down all videos.


----------



## Arras (May 16, 2013)

I think this is not just Nintendo deciding "we need money for EACH AND EVERY VIDEO", this is Nintendo uploading their data to Youtube's database and Youtube automatically applying the filter to anything that resembles that. It's nearly impossible to distinguish between official reviews, Let's Plays, walkthroughs and just video/soundtrack uploads automatically. I expect them to do something about this, honestly. If they don't, that's stupid.


----------



## jomaper (May 16, 2013)

Terenigma said:


> I agree with this line of thinking. If doing this keeps Nintendo alive then I'm all for it, they have made good games and let's face it, the Wii-u is currently on a downward spiral into oblivion and Zelda/Mario wont save it. So, They have turned to youtube to try and get a bit of money back. Half of this forum has probably pirated many nintendo games so I don't think we can really argue with what they are doing.
> 
> Honestly, playing video games someone else has made and streaming it so a lot of other people don't have to buy that game is ridiculous, Let alone making money from it. It's things like this that are contributing to the financial crisis that many countries are going through.
> 
> 20 people make a game -> 1 person buys the game and uploads video of game -> 50 people watch the video instead of buy the game -> 50 less copies of the game are sold -> the 20 people who made game get the money from 1 person instead of 50 -> the 1 guy who bought the game gets the money -> whats wrong with the world.


The thing is Nintendo is not doomed already or in risk of being and the money they would steal get from youtube couldn't save something like Nintendo anyways.
Oh wow I just read that part of the financial crisis. That's going waaaay out of the line. It has nothing to do with video games but with the system itself, but let's stay on topic.


----------



## emigre (May 16, 2013)

Thinking about it, one could say Nintendo are worse than the Mafia...


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

Arras said:


> I think this is not just Nintendo deciding "we need money for EACH AND EVERY VIDEO", this is Nintendo uploading their data to Youtube's database and Youtube automatically applying the filter to anything that resembles that. It's nearly impossible to distinguish between official reviews, Let's Plays, walkthroughs and just video/soundtrack uploads automatically. I expect them to do something about this, honestly. If they don't, that's stupid.


That's what press says, really how stupid would it be if they took money from channels that they send review copies to and invite to gaming events? I doesn't make any sense to damage their own press.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

Eerpow said:


> That's what press says, really how stupid would it be if they took money from channels that they send review copies to and invite to gaming events? I doesn't make any sense to damage their own press.


Exactly. Let's Play videos are basically free advertising for them.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> eh? It's not about the game per se, it's about distributing videos from the game. The guy above compared this with TV and I said you can't broadcast stuff you don't have the rights to distribute. Movies are being broadcasted in TV because the TV station payed for distribution rights.


Watching a Let's Play video of a video game is the equivalent of a licking photo of a lollypop - not the same thing.

People often watch LP's for the sake of listening or watching the LP'ers rather than for the sake of the games they play. I often turn on the Youtube app on my PSVita and just listen to random Game Grumps banter _(all hail 3G)_ when I'm on the bus - those guys are hilarious when they play games, I watch the show for the comedy, not so much the games.


----------



## RedCoreZero (May 16, 2013)

All companies want your money, badly, selfishly, and wrongly.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 16, 2013)

Yes I'm sure it will backfire on them one way or the other.


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> Exactly. Let's Play videos are basically free advertising for them.


I'm not talking LP vids, I think that LP's can_ in some cases_ make people feel like they don't need to purchase the game anymore. Many of these videos may do the opposite. Games like Phoenix Wright as I mentioned earlier.
What I'm saying is that there are many things that have been mistakenly affected like trailers, reviews, fan created stuff, news, tips, or any other gaming related footage that features copyrighted properties like music, footage or characters. There's no way they want all that to fall under the same conditions especially if it comes from press.

That's not to say that I want them to take advantage of youtube's system even if they partially have the rights to do so, the main problem is that there's so much negativity around it coming from people who earns money from doing LP's, that negativity will hurt both Nintendo and the customer in the end. Best solution would be to contact these channels and have an agreement.


----------



## emigre (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I often turn on the Youtube app on my PSVita and just listen to random Game Grumps banter _(all hail 3G)_ when I'm on the bus - those guys are hilarious when they play games, I watch the show for the comedy, not so much the games.


 
That's because the  Vita has no gaems.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> By _"editing"_.....





jomaper said:


> And what about the rights LPs have over their work? The scripts and edition. It's like saying they will have to pay to Sony too for using Sony Vegas.
> This is a really bad move. I bought the 3DS only because I saw reviews and walkthroughs in Youtube, and I'm sure a lot of people do the same thing.



Samples have been used in music making for some time now, should I make a new song composed entirely of my arrangement of samples I still get to pay. In many cases like that the rights do often revert to the owners of the samples though that gets tricky, go to other areas of IP like patents and you can bet good money on patent infringement costing near total sales/profits for a given venture if it happens and is taken all the way in court.
Paid video productions... well technically there are many programs like that. More importantly though just because X264 is free does not mean you are able to use the H264 standard it encodes for in a commercial video in a lot of places, if you want to read more on that I suggest the discussions from the other year about what standards HTML5 video should use as it came up there. For a lesser version 4.1.1 in http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/reader/x/eula_en_gb.html -- that free adobe flash player adobe do actually pay for.
Personally I find that something of a delicious irony given the anti piracy public faces many of the game videos crowd seem to display.



The Minecrafter said:


> What I think Nintendo should do is to analyze the uploads by channel, and decide what to do with it. A channel that shows some segments of games, but is not going through the entire game should be allowed to continue as before, and receive revenue. Someone who uploads just pure gameplay, basically a video walkthrough, should have all the revenue go to Nintendo, since all the video is showing is the entire game experience broken up into chunks. However, for the people who do LP videos and do a lot of editing, Nintendo should determine how much work the uploader puts into editing it, and share the profits accordingly. So therefore, people that put a lot of effort into editing get some profit out of it, while those that just playthrough the game do not. Anyway, that's what I think Nintendo should do.
> 
> Also, don't be stupid Nintendo and block videos from certain countries. That's just stupid. If you are worried, put the age limit filter on it, but don't block the videos.



Put in serious effort when you effectively have the legal and probably the moral right? I would like to be there when they try to sell that to the stockholders.

If nothing else what takes a lot of work? Going around youtube it is fairly obvious many can not edit, animate, script or otherwise do a lot of what goes into video making for shit and if what they have takes ten hours someone else might be able to replicate in seconds, or indeed if they are using inferior software you also have the issue of technically possible* but hard to do. We then get into the even hazier issue of idea time (how long did you spend thinking up that sketch).

*I am supposedly trained in technical drawing and given a image editor that makes circles, squares, lines and tells me what angle something is at I can use construction lines and everything I was taught to draw whatever you like. Give me my nice expensive cad program that I can select lines for, set a constraint to always make these lines parallel and I can make whatever you like far more easily. This definitely exists in video too, most noticeably in why a good chunk of the chroma keying (greenscreening) you see looks horrible (though another chunk of that is most people do not know how to do it well or refuse to do it well).



emigre said:


> Thinking about it, one could say Nintendo are worse than the Mafia...



Organised crime has long held trademarks to its likeness and gone after people using it without permission
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/28/angels_mcqueen_case/


----------



## Chary (May 16, 2013)

> Got my first content ID strike from Nintendo on PBGGameplay. I was working on a Top 10 Mario Games video, but after talking with someone from TGS, looks like I gotta hold off on it for a bit. WELP, I guess I won't tell you guys which Mario games you should consider purchasing because Nintendo doesn't want me to. Guess I'll oblige.


 
PeanutButterGamer said this today, on his Facebook


----------



## jomaper (May 16, 2013)

Chary said:


> PeanutButterGamer said this today, on his Facebook


Exactly what we were saying.
What was Nintendo expecting? I seriously can't believe how stupid some of the big brands act.
I mean... for real, who told these guys "GET THE RIGHTS AND FUCK THE GUYS THAT GIVE US FREE PUBLICITY"?


----------



## Isaac (May 16, 2013)

I do believe they offered notch ad money for minecraft let's plays... he declined it.


----------



## BrightNeko (May 16, 2013)

This is a double edge sword of a thing. If the length was known it would be easier to say if it was good or bad. Like if the video runs over 15 minutes then nintendo gets the money ok, that would be fine. If it is 3 minutes, I think some LPers will start look for other jobs.

-edit-
Only after this do I see the thing PBG posted. Geez, nintendo so mean.


----------



## jomaper (May 16, 2013)

BrightNeko said:


> This is a double edge sword of a thing. If the length was known it would be easier to say if it was good or bad. Like if the video runs over 15 minutes then nintendo gets the money ok, that would be fine. If it is 3 minutes, I think some LPers will start look for other jobs.


A lot of the LPrs are actually animators too (since they edit their stuff) like my god (and the god that everybody should pray), egoraptor.
The thing is making vidyagaems vidyas made a seriously good income because they had a lot of material to make videos, instead of just having to edit and animate for weeks they could just record themselves playing and doing a good edit and that -is- was all.


----------



## Black-Ice (May 16, 2013)

BrightNeko said:


> Like if the video runs over 15 minutes then nintendo gets the money ok,


Then everyone would make 14:59 video's


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 16, 2013)

I can't see how anyone is going "this isn't that bad." Hell it feels worse than just removing the videos. When you remove them you know you violated something and won't do it again. Here they basically hijack your work, take all the money from it, and all that work is thrown to shit.

Re the whole "it's just LPs": It doesn't matter, it's your work. You spent the time to record the game, have commentary, maybe occasionally some effects and editing. Plus it can be things other than LPs. As said in Nintendo's statement it can be almost anything that uses audio, footage, or even images from a game. God forbid I did a review of Super Mario Galaxy only to have Nintendo take all my money for my effort. All the time spent playing, acquiring footage, editing, adding special effects, recording myself maybe talking, stuff like that. Or even just using a quirky Nintendo song to add some funny noise to your videos. It's absolutely dumb.

Also if you say "This is good because Nintendo could do worse" then you should really just stop talking.



Black-Ice said:


> Then everyone would make 14:59 video's


Or cut it into more parts and get more views and more money.


----------



## xist (May 16, 2013)

Puts Sony's new Share button into a whole new perspective...


----------



## ComeTurismO (May 16, 2013)

Wait, so if I post a video on YouTube showing how to disable the message that asks you to system update, Nintendo will say, IT'S MI VIDEO!!?


----------



## xist (May 16, 2013)

ComeTurismO said:


> Wait, so if I post a video on YouTube showing how to disable the message that asks you to system update, Nintendo will say, IT'S MI VIDEO!!?


 
No, they'll say "IT'S *MII* VIDEO!!?"


----------



## ComeTurismO (May 16, 2013)

xist said:


> No, they'll say "IT'S *MII* VIDEO!!?"


LOL! DUDE I LOVE YOU


----------



## the_randomizer (May 16, 2013)

Eerpow said:


> That's not the problem, the problem is people using Youtube as an honest income source and Nintendo putting themselves in a bad relationship with youtubers.


 
That's hardly the YouTube users' fault. Nintendo wants a part of the revenue which, from a business standpoint, makes sense, but there should be less dick ways of doing it.


----------



## Celice (May 16, 2013)

This thread has turned into a Nintendo-fest... but Nintendo isn't the only one who was approached by YouTube. Notch, the dude behind Minecraft, said this morning that he was also reached out to and asked if he would like to take ad revenue from any Minecraft videos. I believe he declined; but point is, I'm betting other high-profile businesses, who have huge YouTube content being distributed online, are getting contact by YouTube to see if they're interested in taking the revenue for themselves.

On a second note, I'm super interested to see where videos showing romhacks come in. It features assets and engines originally designed by Nintendo employees or that is copyrighted under Nintendo, but the actual changes and levels are someone else's work. Does Nintendo get to profit of these videos, or actually, does Nintendo suddenly get the right to censor and make such videos unavailable to the public?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 16, 2013)

Uh... wait... the uploader still gets paid... Nintendo gets paid for the uploader making profit off of their work, what's the problem? Oh right, big greedy company ruining LPers and YouTube.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 16, 2013)

Celice said:


> This thread has turned into a Nintendo-fest... but Nintendo isn't the only one who was approached by YouTube. Notch, the dude behind Minecraft, said this morning that he was also reached out to and asked if he would like to take ad revenue from any Minecraft videos. I believe he declined; but point is, I'm betting other high-profile businesses, who have huge YouTube content being distributed online, are getting contact by YouTube to see if they're interested in taking the revenue for themselves.
> 
> On a second note, I'm super interested to see where videos showing romhacks come in. It features assets and engines originally designed by Nintendo employees or that is copyrighted under Nintendo, but the actual changes and levels are someone else's work. Does Nintendo get to profit of these videos, or actually, does Nintendo suddenly get the right to censor and make such videos unavailable to the public?



Various companies have issued blanket statements in the past to the effect of "by all means use footage from the game". http://www.ftlgame.com/?p=388 being an example of a smaller game company doing it. The closest I have got here is some of the debates about public domain publishing -- the layout of the books is technically a new work so....

Rom hacks... more interesting than that might be the variations in ROM hacks -- there are total conversions out there and maybe aside from the font (and the font people are very copyright happy, admittedly for good reason) and some rough layout they are different games.


----------



## Arras (May 16, 2013)

Celice said:


> This thread has turned into a Nintendo-fest... but Nintendo isn't the only one who was approached by YouTube. Notch, the dude behind Minecraft, said this morning that he was also reached out to and asked if he would like to take ad revenue from any Minecraft videos. I believe he declined; but point is, I'm betting other high-profile businesses, who have huge YouTube content being distributed online, are getting contact by YouTube to see if they're interested in taking the revenue for themselves.
> 
> On a second note, I'm super interested to see where videos showing romhacks come in. It features assets and engines originally designed by Nintendo employees or that is copyrighted under Nintendo, but the actual changes and levels are someone else's work. Does Nintendo get to profit of these videos, or actually, does Nintendo suddenly get the right to censor and make such videos unavailable to the public?


I'm guessing Mario graphics + sounds = Youtube automatically detects it as Nintendo property.

Also, if this is a case of Youtube going to Nintendo and basically asking "Hey, would you like free ad money? (Y/N)" then they'd be hard pressed to convince their stakeholders (among others?) that they should decline. Declining something like this is far, far easier for a small indie company/person like Notch (since you guys seem to like mentioning him). I'm not trying to say this is ok, mind you. It's still a dick move, but I'm guessing at least part of this (again, I'm not saying all of it) can be blamed on Youtube.


----------



## Rydian (May 16, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Uh... wait... the uploader still gets paid...


Uploaders get paid from the ads.  But the ad money goes to Nintendo if the claim is filed.

So what part of that logic makes you think the uploader still gets paid?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Uploaders get paid from the ads. But the ad money goes to Nintendo if the claim is filed.
> 
> So what part of that logic makes you think the uploader still gets paid?


 
Views. The uploader can still get money from ads on the side of the video. Nintendo is just putting ads in the video before, during or after.


----------



## Rydian (May 16, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Views. The uploader can still get money from ads on the side of the video. Nintendo is just putting ads in the video before, during or after.


Views give no money, it's the ads that give money if you've monetized a video, and the source and other info we've gotten since the original article specifically state that the money for the existing ads goes to Nintendo.

The uploader does NOT get paid, instead Nintendo gets paid for what the uploader uploaded and monetized.


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> That's hardly the YouTube users' fault. Nintendo wants a part of the revenue which, from a business standpoint, makes sense, but there should be less dick ways of doing it.


Didn't express myself correctly, I don't mean it's youtuber's fault, I tried to say that the problem was Nintendo's relationship with these people getting damaged.
From a business point of view it doesn't work out in the long run, there's just too much negativity surrounding taking away peoples income from such videos completely, even if it's the legally right thing to do.


----------



## BIFFTAZ (May 16, 2013)

I thought YouTube don't pay out to people that only post gaming videos, Only partners like Machinima & the like pay out ?


----------



## Shadowlurker (May 16, 2013)

I've seen a lot of Youtubers complaining about this, and sure it's a questionable move by Nintendo. But most of the people moaning about it RARELY play Nintendo games, sure people that only play/mainly play/play a lot of Nintendo games are furious and rightly so, however most of the people I've seen are people like GassyMexican, TotalBiscuit, etc. all of whom usually don't even touch Nintendo's games and are only moaning because they can't get money from it and prove that they are only in it for the money and not their fans because even when they would play a Nintendo game it would only be one game in a few videos a week, where they would have several other non-nintendo related videos which will still be giving them the money they've somewhat earned... At best LP-ers like them will lose barely any money if they upload often.


----------



## Rydian (May 16, 2013)

Shadowlurker said:


> I've seen a lot of Youtubers complaining about this, and sure it's a questionable move by Nintendo. But most of the people moaning about it RARELY play Nintendo games, sure people that only play/mainly play/play a lot of Nintendo games are furious and rightly so, however most of the people I've seen are people like GassyMexican, TotalBiscuit, etc. all of whom usually don't even touch Nintendo's games and are only moaning because they can't get money from it and prove that they are only in it for the money and not their fans because even when they would play a Nintendo game it would only be one game in a few videos a week, where they would have several other non-nintendo related videos which will still be giving them the money they've somewhat earned... At best LP-ers like them will lose barely any money if they upload often.


When the money is used to buy the food they eat and pay their rent, I think they have a right to worry about even a small drop in the revenue.


----------



## Wizerzak (May 16, 2013)

Why is everyone bashing Nintendo over this? It's YouTube that are approaching hundreds of companies asking for this kind of deal, Nintendo simply accepted the offer (which, by Notch's tweets were likely _VERY_ generous offers). Notch said himself how close he was to accepting the deal and is an indie developer whom relies upon his reputation. Now for a company such as Nintendo this is not likely to harm them in any way and if they received the same generous offer that Mojang had then there's no logical reason, from a business perspective, not to accept the offer.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 16, 2013)

Shadowlurker said:


> stuff



That is some... interesting logic. I will go



Shadowlurker said:


> I've seen a lot of Youtubers complaining about this, and sure it's a questionable move by Nintendo.


Questionable as in "game developers rely on something resembling a free for all in terms for footage as a large component of marketing", sure. Legally not so much.



Shadowlurker said:


> But most of the people moaning about it RARELY play Nintendo games


Your point? More seriously does one have to be part of the directly troubled to call someone on a suspect move?



Shadowlurker said:


> sure people that only play/mainly play/play a lot of Nintendo games are furious and rightly so


End of the free ride does not translate to "rightly so" quite so easily.



Shadowlurker said:


> are only moaning because they can't get money from it and prove that they are only in it for the money and not their fans


Can you not do both at the same time? Also so (a product people enjoy still gets delivered even if it is paid or not)?



Shadowlurker said:


> because even when they would play a Nintendo game it would only be one game in a few videos a week, where they would have several other non-nintendo related videos which will still be giving them the money they've somewhat earned... At best LP-ers like them will lose barely any money if they upload often.


See how many will sell merch, run their own adverts within their videos, seek sponsorship, [insert long list of other monetisation methods]. Taking a hit out of a key component of your business model is time to sit up and take note. "if they upload often".... there are certainly zero effort, zero skill types giving it a punt but I am fairly certain there is a decent multiplier in the "minutes of resulting video x ? = minutes of work" equation for a lot of them.


----------



## jomaper (May 16, 2013)

Shadowlurker said:


> I've seen a lot of Youtubers complaining about this, and sure it's a questionable move by Nintendo. But most of the people moaning about it RARELY play Nintendo games, sure people that only play/mainly play/play a lot of Nintendo games are furious and rightly so, however most of the people I've seen are people like GassyMexican, TotalBiscuit, etc. all of whom usually don't even touch Nintendo's games and are only moaning because they can't get money from it and prove that they are only in it for the money and not their fans because even when they would play a Nintendo game it would only be one game in a few videos a week, where they would have several other non-nintendo related videos which will still be giving them the money they've somewhat earned... At best LP-ers like them will lose barely any money if they upload often.


 
Seriously? A dude that edits and records 24/7 is greedy for wanting money for what he does but Nintendo is not? 
Come on...


----------



## Rydian (May 16, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Why is everyone bashing Nintendo over this? It's YouTube that are approaching hundreds of companies asking for this kind of deal, Nintendo simply accepted the offer (which, by Notch's tweets were likely _VERY_ generous offers). Notch said himself how close he was to accepting the deal and is an indie developer whom relies upon his reputation. Now for a company such as Nintendo this is not likely to harm them in any way and if they received the same generous offer that Mojang had then there's no logical reason, from a business perspective, not to accept the offer.


It's a large amount of money to the devs because they're getting all of whoever gets flagged.  For the individual users though, it's all of what they would have gotten.

Just because it's good from a immediate-monetary-business perspective doesn't mean it's something they can't be criticized for.  They have the option to *do nothing* (Youtube approached them, they can simply _do nothing_ and this deal will not happen), but instead took action to let this happen.  The action was likely small, but was more effort than ignoring it, and is affecting a lot of people already.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 16, 2013)

A completely reasonable business decision but an ass move to the LPers who play Nintendo games.


----------



## Wizerzak (May 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> It's a large amount of money to the devs because they're getting all of whoever gets flagged. *For the individual users though, it's all of what they would have gotten*.
> 
> Just because it's good from a immediate-monetary-business perspective doesn't mean it's something they can't be criticized for. They have the option to do nothing (Youtube approached them, they can simply _do nothing_ and this deal will not happen), but instead took action to let this happen. The action was likely small, but was more effort than ignoring it, and is affecting a lot of people already.


Those individual users shouldn't technically be profiting off of Nintendo's copyrighted works in the first place, so in a sense they're still doing them a favour by taking this alternative opposed to suing them.


----------



## Eerpow (May 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> It's a large amount of money to the devs because they're getting all of whoever gets flagged. For the individual users though, it's all of what they would have gotten.
> 
> Just because it's good from a immediate-monetary-business perspective doesn't mean it's something they can't be criticized for. They have the option to *do nothing* (Youtube approached them, they can simply _do nothing_ and this deal will not happen), but instead took action to let this happen. The action was likely small, but was more effort than ignoring it, and is affecting a lot of people already.


It's pretty bad.
It's affecting everyone, under 10min videos too. I mentioned before how even channels related to press are being detected. I don't think Nintendo took into account just how extreme the filter would be.
Gathering money that would go to channels belonging gaming sites doing Nintendo coverage and reviews is something they likely didn't foresee happening.

I'm don't see more than a week passing by without a statement from Nintendo about resolving these problems.


----------



## emigre (May 16, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Those individual users shouldn't technically be profiting off of Nintendo's copyrighted works in the first place, so in a sense they're still doing them a favour by taking this alternative opposed to suing them.


 
They aren't profiting from Nintendo's copyrighted works. They're profiting from their own charm and hard work. If anything their enjoyment and love of their Nintendo games act as free advertisement. Video games maybe enjoyed as passive entertainment which LPs are, Video games are nominally enjoyed with direct involvement. LPers will just shift towards non Nintendo games. This a cold hearted business decision from Nintendo and slaps the faces of their fans.

Dick move is a dick move.


----------



## Rydian (May 16, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> Those individual users shouldn't technically be profiting off of Nintendo's copyrighted works in the first place, so in a sense they're still doing them a favour by taking this alternative opposed to suing them.


If you rely on the ad money to eat, then whether the video is still up or not does not matter one bit because you're not getting paid for it.


----------



## Wizerzak (May 16, 2013)

emigre said:


> They aren't profiting from Nintendo's copyrighted works. They're profiting from their own charm and hard work. If anything their enjoyment and love of their Nintendo games act as free advertisement. Video games maybe enjoyed as passive entertainment which LPs are, Video games are nominally enjoyed with direct involvement. LPers will just shift towards non Nintendo games. This a cold hearted business decision from Nintendo and slaps the faces of their fans.
> 
> Dick move is a dick move.


So if I just love the 'charm and hard work' of Stephen Fry's voice and he goes and makes an audio book, should the writer not receive any of the profits?


----------



## emigre (May 17, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> So if I just love the 'charm and hard work' of Stephen Fry's voice and he goes and makes an audio book, should the writer not receive any of the profits?


 
That's a shit analogy.


----------



## jacksprat1990 (May 17, 2013)

A bit dumb on Nintendo's part. They didn't learn from SEGA it seems.


----------



## Wizerzak (May 17, 2013)

emigre said:


> That's a shit analogy.


That's a shit response. My analogy was perfectly reasonable and deals with all the same problems faced with video game playthroughs.

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, even if it has your voice / face plastered all over the top. Legally, Nintendo (and every other game publisher) could sue for these videos. The only exceptions are game reviews, however playing through an entire game does not exactly constitute as a 'review'.


----------



## emigre (May 17, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> That's a shit response. My analogy was perfectly reasonable and deals with all the same problems faced with video game playthroughs.
> 
> Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, even if it has your voice / face plastered all over the top. Legally, Nintendo (and every other game publisher) could sue for these videos. The only exceptions are game reviews, however playing through an entire game does not exactly constitute as a 'review'.


 
Fair Use.


----------



## Rydian (May 17, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> So if I just love the 'charm and hard work' of Stephen Fry's voice and he goes and makes an audio book, should the writer not receive any of the profits?


The point of the book is the information, in audio format it's still the same information.

On the other hand, gameplay is the point of a video game.  Interaction.  You don't get that from watching somebody else play.

And before you try to convince yourself that it's the other way around, ask yourself this.  Should it be illegal to go over to a friend's house and watch them play a videogame?  I used to do that all the time.  Am I in the wrong for watching them?  After all they only bought the copy for themselves, and have no distribution agreement.


----------



## DSGamer64 (May 17, 2013)

Still not as bad as Major League Baseball, they have the worst content restrictions in the western world methinks.


----------



## Wizerzak (May 17, 2013)

emigre said:


> Fair Use.


...you don't appear to understand how the law works or what is meant by 'fair use' so I'm not going to even bother to respond anymore. Good night.


----------



## SifJar (May 17, 2013)

Well, I have a few thoughts to share on this:

It's clear that this initiative was started by YouTube, not Nintendo; they have made similar offers to others, including Notch for Minecraft videos (which considering the vast magnitude of Minecraft videos and the relative size of Mojang compared with Nintendo, would probably have been a much more tempting offer than the one to Nintendo). Of course, Nintendo still accepted the offer.

This will undoubtedly lead to a few things;

(i) people will stop making videos about Nintendo games - this is an obvious response, and it means a serious dip in "free" advertising (although I guess it's not really "free" when you weigh it against the potential revenue gained by doing the deal). Many people don't have the disposable income to buy every video game they want, and so naturally they turn to reviews etc. to help them choose. In this day and age, that means, for many people, YouTube videos. The advertising given by YouTubers is probably worth more than the ad revenue on those videos.​​(ii) YouTubers who do keep using Nintendo games in their videos will move to other monetization methods e.g. merchandise, or in-video ads/sponsorship. For the former, there's probably not much Nintendo could do. For the later, there is potentially grounds for them to take action, I'm not too sure. (I would hope there isn't, but I would also have hoped they wouldn't have been able to get the ad revenue in the first place).​Either way, viewers will be bombarded with either extra advertising (the regular YouTube ads plus the in-video ads), or else with requests to buy merchandise. Lose-lose for viewers IMO, which in turn decreases viewers, which in turn decreases effectiveness of these videos as an advertising mechanism for the games.​​I also think it is somewhat ridiculous that Nintendo will be able to control where the videos can be watched, the age ratings, etc.

So as you can see, I am opposed to the idea (even though I never watch any sort of game play or LP videos on YouTube, nor create them).

On the other hand, I can understand why Nintendo might want some sort of control over videos concerning their products, but I sincerely hope this doesn't lead to any form of censorship from Nintendo, as that would set a very dangerous precedent for YouTube IMO.

I think this is a poor choice, and I think it will create bad publicity for Nintendo, which is yet another downside to the whole thing.


----------



## emigre (May 17, 2013)

Who remembers when Ninty were encouraging to make their own Lets Plays?


----------



## Nah3DS (May 17, 2013)

internet is too advanced for the current copyrights laws....
and personally, judging from how fast the net is evolving, I think that will never change
this will be a constant struggle, with the bigger boys taking advantages over these "grey areas" and getting all the cash

I believe the only way to bring balance to this "corporative abuse"... is piracy
Nintendo is getting money from a youtube video you have worked so hard? just pirate a couple of games and "get your money back"

there's no other way around it.... the world just work that way


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 17, 2013)

tl;dr thread, but I hope to god everyone isn't all like "well that's understandable I mean Nintendo blah blah good things blah blah".


----------



## emigre (May 17, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> tl;dr thread, but I hope to god everyone isn't all like "well that's understandable I mean Nintendo blah blah good things blah blah".


 
Maybe Nintendo are just being MASTER TROLES about all of this?


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 17, 2013)

emigre said:


> Maybe Nintendo are just being MASTER TROLES about all of this?


BETR TROLE THAN U


----------



## KazoWAR (May 17, 2013)

good thing my channel is partnered with a company that already works with nintendo.


----------



## emigre (May 17, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> BETR TROLE THAN WII U


 
Fixed that for ya.


----------



## narutofan777 (May 17, 2013)

Do you know what I did with my nds a long time ago? I broke it in half and slammed it against a rock then I buried it.


----------



## jacksprat1990 (May 17, 2013)

narutofan777 said:


> Do you know what I did with my nds a long time ago? I broke it in half and slammed it against a rock then I buried it.



Erm...Unlucky. You missed out on a lot of good games.


----------



## KingBlank (May 17, 2013)

YouTube LP's = advertising...
then again, I have a friend who used to just watch let's plays instead of buying games cause his computer could not run them.


----------



## gbadl (May 17, 2013)

My question is, how much are people really making doing long plays? $10 a day? $100 a day? $1000 a day?


----------



## Ericthegreat (May 17, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Ah, the wonderful world of Youtube. For many it has provided one of the most innovative new careers in modern history, being able to do your own pet project, such as a Let's Play series, and be able to get paid for it. This is thanks to Google's AdSense, a program which gives Youtubers money for the ads on their videos. For many, this makes up their living, especially the frequent Let's Play series by many Youtubers. Now, however, it seems avoiding to play Nintendo games for Youtube is a safe bet, as Nintendo is beginning to crack down and claim ownership on videos featuring their games.
> 
> By claiming ownership, videos featuring their games get all their ad money sent to Nintendo instead of the creator. An example is Youtuber Zack Scott, who is currently doing a Let's Play of Nintendo's recently released Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon. This report is also backed by Mike Bithel, creator of indie game Thomas Was Alone and the hugely popular series of Youtube channels Machinima.
> 
> ...


That's really shitty as the amount of money they are getting means nothing for Nintendo, but as for the uploader, it could be a good source of beer money.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 17, 2013)

KingBlank said:


> YouTube LP's = advertising...
> then again, I have a friend who used to just watch let's plays instead of buying games cause his computer could not run them.


 
Well to be fair he's kinda like a nonexistent market then. He couldn't even play the games so there's no real loss there.

(side note let's not talk about piracy since I know that's a common argument but this is a completely different subject)

A LP is in no way a perfect substitute for actually playing a game really, hell the only LP I watch (Game Grumps) I just watch for the commentary, not because the game itself is interesting. I skip entire LPs by them because they're just flat out boring.


----------



## Rydian (May 17, 2013)

gbadl said:


> My question is, how much are people really making doing long plays? $10 a day? $100 a day? $1000 a day?


Depends on the uploader.  Generally you're going to need like, 50,000 or more views on each vid to make a noticeable amount of money, but there are actually plenty of youtubers that make their living from it, like bluexephos (yogscast), pewdiepie, etc.


----------



## Lestworth (May 17, 2013)

I still find it funny how someone can be thrown the law of "fair use" in there face, and yet still argue and ignore that fact. Fair use covers anyone who has manipulated the video in such a way to the point it wasn't a direct rip of him playing the game with no outside sounds, or content added. This basically encompasses every single person on youtube (ignoring the special few).

So for someone to even think that Fair Use can be ignored due to copyright "infringement" there was already a LEGAL BATTLE OVER THIS. Who won, its no surprise to me, Fair use.

I'm just curious if such people as Raocow will be affected by this, as he only does SMB / MB1-3 / SMW / SMBX and a few hacks of other games.


----------



## nachoscool (May 17, 2013)

Based Nintendo getting rid of LPers. I can't even believe people actually do this as a full time job.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 17, 2013)

Sorry, I'm going to continue uploading videos of LPs. Too bad, so sad. There are ways to circumvent YouTube detection methods and bypass any checks they have established.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (May 17, 2013)

Gahars said:


> You'd think Nintendo, of all companies, would be able to learn from Sega's mistakes.
> 
> Guess not.


I guess you could say that...

...


... Nintendon't!


----------



## Pleng (May 17, 2013)

Well on a personal, and entirely selfish level, this is good thing for me... On the rare occasion I search for game footage on YouTube I want to see just that - GAME footage. I want see the game and actually *hear* the music and sound effects without some wannabe journalist yapping away in a really really irritating voice.

Now, considering the type of videos I want to see (straight gameplay footage) are unlikely to be created by people who expect revenue form their videos, and assuming that people who DO create videos with voice overs are likely to produce less Nintendo-related content, then by the sounds of things, there'll be less 'noise' in my search results.

However I realise I'm in a minority here and, looking at the bigger picture, this is bad news for both Nintendo and the creators of the content. Nintendo in the long term looses people promoting their games for free to make a short buck in the short term. As many have said, a revenue sharing system would have been a much better and fairer idea. Even if Nintendo got 25% of the revenue then that's still a fair whack.

The question on my mind is WHAT do YouTube have to gain by approaching companies in such a manner? What difference does it make to them who the money goes to? I can only assume that Nintendo are getting a *lower* cut of the ad revenue than a private individual. Anyway... this could turn out bad for YouTube. If I was somebody earning money from YouTube content, and all of a sudden *ALL* that money was taken from me, I'd simply remove my videos.


----------



## Lestworth (May 17, 2013)

Pleng said:


> If I was somebody earning money from YouTube content, and all of a sudden *ALL* that money was taken from me, I'd simply remove my videos.


 

That's kind of how I view it. If i was the person that was all of a sudden target by Nintendo, and all my revenue was stripped from those videos. I'd tell them to kiss it, and put my videos to private, or delete them off of youtube. This is of course if Nintendo, after labeling the video, does not posses full and complete control of said video.


----------



## KingBlank (May 17, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> A LP is in no way a perfect substitute for actually playing a game really, hell the only LP I watch (Game Grumps) I just watch for the commentary, not because the game itself is interesting. I skip entire LPs by them because they're just flat out boring.


Yeah, I watch LPs for the commentary mainly, or in the case of minecraft mod LPs, (such as direwolf20's) I watch them to learn how to use certain mods.
Nintendo developed games are oriented around game play, unlike say - the half life series, which is effectively a book where you move around to turn the page.
A LP can't be harmful for Nintendo game sales.


----------



## ZaeZae64 (May 17, 2013)

http://blazehedgehog.tumblr.com/post/50598448215/nintendo-is-killing-lets-play

This was an interesting read.
(yeah, yeah I know dumblr, whatever)


----------



## Hielkenator (May 17, 2013)

How's this bad news?
Anyway there are tools available to eliminate ANY advertising on youtube. 
If I read properly they are not blocking any videos.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 17, 2013)

Lestworth said:


> Fair use covers anyone who has manipulated the video in such a way to the point it wasn't a direct rip of him playing the game with no outside sounds, or content added. This basically encompasses every single person on youtube (ignoring the special few).
> 
> So for someone to even think that Fair Use can be ignored due to copyright "infringement" there was already a LEGAL BATTLE OVER THIS. Who won, its no surprise to me, Fair use.



That is an interesting interpretation of fair use and one I am not sure any judge present working could get behind. The obvious question there is what counts as added content? My logo in the bottom right, a timer, if I have 4 hours of raw footage but 20 minutes beforehand is me talking does that count? 4 hours of footage but I stick my title card in front?
Certainly there is a line at which fair use appears and in various levels talking over a game could count as criticism/review, satire in some cases or possibly even education (the traditional big three exceptions to copyright before we even get to the far trickier area of general fair use).



the_randomizer said:


> Sorry, I'm going to continue uploading videos of LPs. Too bad, so sad. There are ways to circumvent YouTube detection methods and bypass any checks they have established.


The trouble there is if you are caught that probably counts as admission to bad things and in many cases being caught gaming the system is just as bad as outright being caught doing something wrong.

Re: the point of games is gameplay. Possibly but it would be a hell of an argument to make in front of a judge, especially with precedents already set for sampling, for clips from shows, for audio tracks, for subtitles to films and more esoterically some of the commercial playback stuff from videos/DVDs.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 17, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> That is an interesting interpretation of fair use and one I am not sure any judge present working could get behind. The obvious question there is what counts as added content? My logo in the bottom right, a timer, if I have 4 hours of raw footage but 20 minutes beforehand is me talking does that count? 4 hours of footage but I stick my title card in front?
> Certainly there is a line at which fair use appears and in various levels talking over a game could count as criticism/review, satire in some cases or possibly even education (the traditional big three exceptions to copyright before we even get to the far trickier area of general fair use).
> 
> 
> ...


 
Haven't had any issues yet, but I can't be too safe. What do we do, post videos of the latest Harlem Shake?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 17, 2013)

Hielkenator said:


> How's this bad news?
> Anyway there are tools available to eliminate ANY advertising on youtube.
> If I read properly they are not blocking any videos.


 
But they're taking the revenue from videos with Nintendo content away from the video's creator. So for people who make a living off Youtube doing, say, Let's Plays, lose the money from their Nintendo videos if Nintendo cracks down on them.

Plus Nintendo also gets the option to control distribution of the video. They can set up when ads appear in the video, make it unavailable in certain countries, or block it completely.

It's very bad if Nintendo REALLY cracks down on this more than they already have.


----------



## Rydian (May 17, 2013)

Hielkenator said:


> How's this bad news?


... _read the thread_?  We've explained how it's bad over and over.  People who do LPs and other types of video game videos sometimes rely on the money from advertising for a living (their food, rent, etc.) via the existing ads.

But if Nintendo claims a video, then the money from _the existing ads_ goes to Nintendo, NOT the person who did the video.



ZaeZae64 said:


> http://blazehedgehog.tumblr.com/post/50598448215/nintendo-is-killing-lets-play
> 
> This was an interesting read.
> (yeah, yeah I know dumblr, whatever)


Am I *seriously* reading "if it's _fun_ then you don't deserve it as a job" and "it's okay for people who LP like pewdiepie to have their income/job removed because I don't agree with them doing it for the money instead of the fun"?

How childish can somebody get!?


----------



## Gahars (May 17, 2013)

To give another viewpoint, here is an article by the developer of Thomas Was Alone - a small, independent title he believes owes its success to the likes of Let's Players.

Now, Nintendo is as far from indie as you can get, but I think it highlights how much of an impact these things can have. Nintendo may be within their rights to take this action, but they're denying themselves free, easy promotion.


----------



## Rydian (May 17, 2013)

Gahars said:


> To give another viewpoint, here is an article by the developer of Thomas Was Alone





> Indies: Occupy the gap left by the lack of Mario and send out some Steam keys or download codes.


Not a bad idea in general (not just this situation).



> I'll close with an example from Thomas Was Alone's sale history. The game launched in July on direct sales, and in November on Steam. The following Christmas I ran a 50 per cent off sale, which was doing rather well.
> 
> And then, on January 1st, Total Biscuit did a WTF video about the game (TB isn't a LPer, but he's a YouTube game guy so he's relevant). Thomas sold eight times more units than on launch day. In a matter of hours. I was outselling Assassin's Creed 3 on Steam. And that's not rare, every indie who's received coverage from TB, or a Let's Play from Pewdie or NerdCubed, has a similar story.


Yeah I check out TotalBiscuit's stuff because his "WTF is:" series is... pretty much exactly what I'm looking for when I go to look up a new game on Youtube.  Somebody tells me to play it, I think "WTF is (x)?", I go to Youtube, and bam.


----------



## jomaper (May 17, 2013)

Rydian said:


> The point of the book is the information, in audio format it's still the same information.





Rydian said:


> On the other hand, gameplay is the point of a video game. Interaction. You don't get that from watching somebody else play.
> And before you try to convince yourself that it's the other way around, ask yourself this. *Should it be illegal to go over to a friend's house and watch them play a videogame?* I used to do that all the time. Am I in the wrong for watching them? After all they only bought the copy for themselves, and have no distribution agreement.


If your friend is not really your friend and you're naked, yes.
Now, seriously... I can't believe there is people defending Nintendo in this topic, like... wtf? 


gbadl said:


> My question is, how much are people really making doing long plays? $10 a day? $100 a day? $1000 a day?


A lot for a single person doing it for a living, but nothing to a company like Nintendo. But I don't really know anymore if it's "nothing"... I mean, assuming they mean this for every single video with Nintendo's material, they can get a crapload of money and I can't even imagine how much that could be.


----------



## dehry (May 17, 2013)

They still get free easy promotion. They just get paid on top of it. Fuck the people who thought they could just sit in their basement and play video games to make a living. The people at IGN, GiantBomb, and other gaming sites do more than just play games. They actually gather news and write reviews of games (and movies.) The whole Let's Play medium has drifted so far from what it was years ago. It used to be people did them for fun and some happened to be funny. Now it's all about overreactions and cursing while asking people to like and subscribe. 

xXXCharizardlover69XXx may have payed $100 for a microphone setup (then downloading a rom/iso and unregistered hypercam,) but Nintendo payed far more to just a single employee to yell "Let's a go!" into a microphone. Mario 64, Super Mario World, and Zelda is not getting free promotion. They are ingrained into gaming culture. Newer things like Xenoblade got spread around by word of mouth and online campaigns, not someone playing through the entire game on YouTube after it was released. The cut scenes in games like that are the same as a movie. No button combination you press will change anything (don't bring quick time events into this) and real people recorded the dialogue and music.

 Every one of those people in that video deserve a cut of the money made from a Skyward Sword LP (conveniently played in dolphin with an ISO, but it's not illegal because I don't want it to be.)

It is kinda moot to point this out though, because the general sentiment here on this forum is "SCREW THE GAME COMPANY I WANT FREE GAMES GIBE ROmS PLS"


----------



## FAST6191 (May 17, 2013)

dehry said:


> The people at IGN, GiantBomb, and other gaming sites.....They actually gather news
> 
> [orchestral video]
> Every one of those people in that video deserve a cut of the money made from a Skyward Sword LP (conveniently played in dolphin with an ISO, but it's not illegal because I don't want it to be.)
> ...



1) That is classic. I am sure it happens once or twice a year but turning around press releases and newswires are not to much in line with classical journalism. This is not to say bad but you may get called on that.

2) Assuming that is a Nintendo orchestrated affair Is it not called being a session musician?

3) Really? I have seen a handful of discussions on various relevant aspects of IP law, the nature of fair use, the nature of work, the merit of the medium and more in this very thread. Certainly fans of free games make up a significant portion of the userbase but such a thing does not preclude a discussion on other things.


----------



## jomaper (May 17, 2013)

I'm quite sure that most of the LPers use legal games...


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (May 17, 2013)

people are watching videos and enjoying the content and story free instead of actually playing the games (buying them)

- Nintendo Logic

Nintendo is just butthurt because 2 big market changing consoles are on their way and the Wii-U is already dead in the water


----------



## the_randomizer (May 17, 2013)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> people are watching videos and enjoying the content and story free instead of actually playing the games (buying them)
> 
> - Nintendo Logic
> 
> Nintendo is just butthurt because 2 big market changing consoles are on their way and the Wii-U is already dead in the water


 
Most peculiar, I didn't know a dead console can still be manufactured or have games announced. Hell, I should know this, the Vita is in the same boat.


----------



## Gahars (May 17, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> I didn't know dead console can still be manufactured or have games announced. That's a new concept.


 
Not really.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 17, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Not really.


 
Oh right.  My bad.


----------



## emigre (May 17, 2013)

dehry said:


> Newer things like Xenoblade got spread around by word of mouth and online campaigns, not someone playing through the entire game on YouTube after it was released. The cut scenes in games like that are the same as a movie. No button combination you press will change anything (don't bring quick time events into this) and real people recorded the dialogue and music.


 


Spoiler











 
They didn't want submissions to be terribly long but they launched a self described LP contest...


----------



## TheDreamLord (May 17, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> You paid for the game to be able to play it and keep in your possession. You didn't pay for a sharing license. All images, music in a game are copyrighted and remain property of Nintendo, whether you bought the game or not.





WiiUBricker said:


> It is. Nintendo could just take all copyrighted content down. Instead Nintendo allows users to use their copyrighted content in exchange of giving them their revenue. People who wants to make money with copyrighted youtube videos should get a real job.


 
You appear to be a troll. It's classified under fair use if you commentate, therefore legal.

And YouTube is a real job. It's paying, you can live from it, therefore a real job. Nintendo are just being dicks about it, due to the fact that LPs make more money for the company, see : Minecraft. People live off of it, and Notch even said that the only reason Minecraft got popular was from LPs. Nintendo are just shooting themselves in the foot.

Oh, and Notch got offered to allow the content-id thing. He said no, knowing it would cause many problems for LPer's lives.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 17, 2013)

TheDreamLord said:


> You appear to be a troll. It's classified under fair use if you commentate, therefore legal.
> 
> And YouTube is a real job. It's paying, you can live from it, therefore a real job. Nintendo are just being dicks about it, due to the fact that LPs make more money for the company, see : Minecraft. People live off of it, and Notch even said that the only reason Minecraft got popular was from LPs. Nintendo are just shooting themselves in the foot.
> 
> Oh, and Notch got offered to allow the content-id thing. He said no, knowing it would cause many problems for LPer's lives.


Fair-use is just a pseudo-law. It's a dick-move by Nintendo no doubt because it actually harms them more than doing them good, but the fact of the matter is, Nintendo has full power on its content. Since they are a youtube partner, they can take any videos containing their property down in an instant. And there is absolutely nothing people can do about this. And yes, LPler is not a real job. If you have a job interview in the future, what do you intend to say to your employer? That you made your money with sharing videos of other's intellectual property? Well, good luck for your next interview then.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 17, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> Fair-use is just a pseudo-law. It's a dick-move by Nintendo no doubt because it actually harms them more than doing them good, but the fact of the matter is, Nintendo has full power on its content. Since they are a youtube partner, they can take any videos containing their property down in an instant. And there is absolutely nothing people can do about this. And yes, LPler is not a real job. If you have a job interview in the future, what do you intend to say to your employer? That you made your money with sharing videos of other's intellectual property? Well, good luck for your next interview then.


 
Sure there is, users can just download their videos using a YouTube downloader.



WiiUBricker said:


> Eh? You can't download a video that has been taken down.


 
No, but you can download all of them beforehand as a precaution. I know of plenty of sites that let you download your videos in MP4 format when they've been flagged (but not quite removed yet).


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 17, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Sure there is, users can just download their videos using a YouTube downloader.


Eh? You can't download a video that has been taken down.


----------



## Qtis (May 17, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> And yes, LPler is not a real job. If you have a job interview in the future, what do you intend to say to your employer? That you made your money with sharing videos of other's intellectual property? Well, good luck for your next interview then.


I guess that would make reviewers just as stupid? My friend does video game reviews for one of Finland's largest gaming magazine/TV show/website as a part-time job. How does he do it? We get the games (possibly a few drinks) and start playing. Sometimes we record the gameplay straight from the console (propriety video capture devices, be it DS, 3DS, WiiU, PS3, etc, but could be with other devices too) and then afterwards he makes the commentary on it. Then after the review, he hits it with the points (the Good, the Bad and the Fugly).

And yes, he does have a CV with him saying pretty much that he has played video games for a living and spread the love (=someone else's IP). And he's got a job with the same CV. Via an interview. With a large international gaming company. Who loved the work he's done so far.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 17, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> ... LPler is not a real job. If you have a job interview in the future, what do you intend to say to your employer? That you made your money with sharing videos of other's intellectual property? Well, good luck for your next interview then.



Fair use does have some definitions under various laws, at points it is very debatable but it is part of the copyright law.

I would also agree "made a let's play channel" is not a great bit of CV fodder and would also agree many are going off a free ride afforded by other content producers. However made a self funding video series, acted as a video producer, creator and editor and (probably) ran a business/was self employed are different ways of saying that and probably good to have on the CV. None of that is really even into CV fluff words either.


----------



## TheDreamLord (May 17, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> Fair-use is just a pseudo-law. It's a dick-move by Nintendo no doubt because it actually harms them more than doing them good, but the fact of the matter is, Nintendo has full power on its content. Since they are a youtube partner, they can take any videos containing their property down in an instant. And there is absolutely nothing people can do about this. And yes, LPler is not a real job. If you have a job interview in the future, what do you intend to say to your employer? That you made your money with sharing videos of other's intellectual property? Well, good luck for your next interview then.


I refer you to this post :


Qtis said:


> I guess that would make reviewers just as stupid? My friend does video game reviews for one of Finland's largest gaming magazine/TV show/website as a part-time job. How does he do it? We get the games (possibly a few drinks) and start playing. Sometimes we record the gameplay straight from the console (propriety video capture devices, be it DS, 3DS, WiiU, PS3, etc, but could be with other devices too) and then afterwards he makes the commentary on it. Then after the review, he hits it with the points (the Good, the Bad and the Fugly).
> 
> And yes, he does have a CV with him saying pretty much that he has played video games for a living and spread the love (=someone else's IP). And he's got a job with the same CV. Via an interview. With a large international gaming company. Who loved the work he's done so far.


 
It's been done before. It's like this : Sports commentators.  Just to a different audience. If you're a sports commentator, then is that also not a real job? You're just watching the game and talking, yes?


----------



## jomaper (May 17, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> Fair-use is just a pseudo-law. It's a dick-move by Nintendo no doubt because it actually harms them more than doing them good, but the fact of the matter is, Nintendo has full power on its content. Since they are a youtube partner, they can take any videos containing their property down in an instant. And there is absolutely nothing people can do about this. And yes, LPler is not a real job. I*f you have a job interview in the future, what do you intend to say to your employer? That you made your money with sharing videos of other's intellectual property? Well, good luck for your next interview then.*


This is exactly what we mean. People seriously need to start moving on, stop thinking like this is 1970 and internet doesn't exist, jesus.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 17, 2013)

No one but Nintendo truly cares about this. This isn't going to stop people from uploading them.


----------



## Rydian (May 17, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> No one but Nintendo truly cares about this. This isn't going to stop people from uploading them.


Yes it will.  If you would previously upload a video for money, and now you know that you won't get money, you're not going to bother uploading the video.


----------



## YamiHoshi.nl (May 17, 2013)

Nintendo always was a YouTube Partner, but this dick-move started to happen a half year ago.
The thing is, the first popular person now just got affected, and now the world is talking about that like it was brand new.

Look, both me and my brother got affected by this action multiple times since September 2012, last time we both reported it, a full month ago, nobody gave a fuck about it.
Now somebody very popular got affected, and everyone else suddenly woke up.
I hate this behaviour even more than what Nintendo does to YouTube.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 17, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Yes it will. If you would previously upload a video for money, and now you know that you won't get money, you're not going to bother uploading the video.


 
I never made money off my videos, so for me, I'm not affected, but you're right on those who do; they who make money will be deterred. I guess Nintendo doesn't like free advertising.



YamiHoshi.nl said:


> Nintendo always was a YouTube Partner, but this dick-move started to happen a half year ago.
> The thing is, the first popular person now just got affected, and now the world is talking about that like it was brand new.
> 
> Look, both me and my brother got affected by this action multiple times since September 2012, last time we both reported it, a full month ago, nobody gave a fuck about it.
> ...


It's still a dickhead thing for them to do. The fact YouTube doesn't have any way to dispute claims makes it all the more retarded. Trolls.


----------



## TheDreamLord (May 17, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Yes it will. If you would previously upload a video for money, and now you know that you won't get money, you're not going to bother uploading the video.


Pfft, I didn't do it for money and have deleted my Ninty game videos.


YamiHoshi.nl said:


> Nintendo always was a YouTube Partner, but this dick-move started to happen a half year ago.
> The thing is, the first popular person now just got affected, and now the world is talking about that like it was brand new.
> 
> Look, both me and my brother got affected by this action multiple times since September 2012, last time we both reported it, a full month ago, nobody gave a fuck about it.
> ...


Simple reason is just because you weren't known. Isn't anybody's fault.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 17, 2013)

TheDreamLord said:


> Pfft, I didn't do it for money and have deleted my Ninty game videos.
> 
> Simple reason is just because you weren't known. Isn't anybody's fault.


 
Then why do dicks flag videos? Trolling perhaps?


----------



## YamiHoshi.nl (May 17, 2013)

TheDreamLord said:


> Simple reason is just because you weren't known. Isn't anybody's fault.


 
And how is somebody with almost a Million Views a month not known?
Human logic...


----------



## TheDreamLord (May 17, 2013)

YamiHoshi.nl said:


> And how is somebody with almost a Million Views a month not known?
> Human logic...


You never mentioned that, and you said other "big" youtubers. Send me your YouTube account link, and a PM to prove it's actually you (If it isn't the same as your GBATemp name).


----------



## YamiHoshi.nl (May 17, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/user/UltimatePisman
http://www.youtube.com/user/MKGirlism

The latter one isn't as popular, but I've decided to share it, anyway.
Feel free to PM both.

And I didn't talk about "big" YouTubers, I was talking about the more popular YouTubers.


----------



## TheDreamLord (May 17, 2013)

YamiHoshi.nl said:


> http://www.youtube.com/user/UltimatePisman
> http://www.youtube.com/user/MKGirlism
> 
> The latter one isn't as popular, but I've decided to share it, anyway.
> ...


Ah, fair enough then. Sorry about that.


----------



## Mario92 (May 17, 2013)

I think this is basic nintendo: They finally realised internet excists and don't know how to react to it.


----------



## chartube12 (May 17, 2013)

I just seen a newer article on this. Nintendo isn't claiming directly your videos as their own. Instead any videos containing Nintendo content (including fair use videos) will be have Nintendo ads added to them before they play. Nintendo ads will also be added to the regular poll of ads.


----------



## Lestworth (May 17, 2013)

How can anyone even say that being an Lper is not a real job? If it's so dam easy I'd love for everyone to attempt it and get well known to the point where you are actually making enough money to support yourself off it. It's not as easy as everyone seems to think it is, you would have to be a dam fool to even think of such a thing.

You first have to market yourself, you have to industrialize yourself, you have to set time away to do these games. You are your own business, you own yourself, you work for yourself, and you are your own boss. You wouldn't say like a complete retard "derp, I put games on youtube and make revenue off it hur hur hur hur ". " I sustained myself by creating a business of entertainment from videos on youtube ".

Fair-Use is insanely broad to begin with, but you have to be rational. I could be insane with the limits as well. "What if I screamed for a brief 1 sec of a 150589878475982hr video of all the movies in the world, and posted it on youtube, that's FAIR USE hur huh hur" come on people -.-....


----------



## war2thegrave (May 17, 2013)

Mario92 said:


> I think this is basic nintendo: They finally realised internet excists and don't know how to react to it.



Oh, they know how to react to it alright.
Nintendo probably approached google to help them with marketing and this is what google came up with.
considering how huge both of these corporations legal teams must be, you can be certain that this is absolutely legal.


----------



## rupok93 (May 17, 2013)

rupok93: did you hear what nintendo is doing
rupok93: to let's plays?
Friend: yeah
Friend: personally I don't see the issue
Friend: (with what nintendo did)
rupok93: watch totalbiscuits video
rupok93: on why it's an issue
rupok93: basically these guys take the time and effort to make the commentaries
rupok93: people don't watch them for the game
rupok93: its usually for the people
Friend: and nintendo take their time and effort to make the game
Friend: I don't think people should make profit off of that
Friend: and I do think nintendo should be allowed a cut of revenue, considering their game is 50% of the video
rupok93: well now that's not gonna happen anymore
rupok93: people are gonna stop making nintendo videos entirely
rupok93: so all the advertising they get
rupok93: from huge fans
rupok93: who do commentaries
rupok93: is gone
Friend: Think about it in another example
rupok93: a video game is interactive media
Friend: if you told someone your life story, and they used your story to make a movie
Friend: you'd expect a cut of the profits too
rupok93: you can't compare video games to a movie
Friend: yes you can
rupok93: movies aren't interactive
rupok93: they don't change
rupok93: when you play them
Friend: But someone could make a commentary of the movie
Friend: and that'd be essentially the same
rupok93: no it's not
Friend: Why isn't it?
rupok93: a movie is static
rupok93: the experience doesn't chance from one person to another
rupok93: change
Friend: Most games don't either tbh
rupok93: the fact that video games require input makes it different
rupok93: ya the core content
rupok93: is the same
rupok93: but if you leave a video game it's not gonna play itself
rupok93: but anyways that's not the point
rupok93: the point is youtube doesn't care
rupok93: if it's a let's play
rupok93: or a review
Friend: I'm not going to argue about it. I don't agree with saying that watching a video of a guy playing a game, and watching a video of a guy commentating a movie are all that different. and I think Nintendo are entitled to a cut of the profits someone is making from THEIR property
rupok93: so fair use laws should go out the window then?
Friend: It isn't breaching fair use law
Friend: Nintendo just wants to put their adverts onto videos of Nintendo content, where the user is profiting
rupok93: ok then all these guys who make a living off commentating and uploading every day are not gonna do it anymore
rupok93: it's basically like filming yourself playing some board game
rupok93: and then the company is like
rupok93: we deserve the profits
rupok93: from ad revenue from that video
Friend: yup, I think that's totally fair
Friend: Without their product, there wouldn't be a video
Friend: anyways afk
rupok93: k


I had a discussion with someone on my steam friends list.


----------



## SifJar (May 17, 2013)

rupok93 said:


> I had a discussion with someone on my steam friends list.


What excellent credentials this person has.


----------



## rupok93 (May 17, 2013)

SifJar said:


> What excellent credentials this person has.


 
I posted it to show how people who support what nintendo is doing think.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 17, 2013)

TheDreamLord said:


> It's been done before. It's like this : Sports commentators. Just to a different audience. If you're a sports commentator, then is that also not a real job? You're just watching the game and talking, yes?


Eh? You seriously compare sports commentators with LPers? A sports commentator works for a TV station that purchases necessary rights for the content to broadcast while LPers make their own content off of other people's property without permission.


----------



## tronic307 (May 17, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> It is. Nintendo could just take all copyrighted content down. Instead Nintendo allows users to use their copyrighted content in exchange of giving them their revenue. People who wants to make money with copyrighted youtube videos should get a real job.


In case you didn't get the memo: There ain't enough jobs for all of us.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (May 17, 2013)

You're not supposed to monetize videos that have content you don't own in them anyway. The youtube partner page specifically mentions video game footage as one thing that can't be monetized. It's all I have on my channel and youtube wouldn't even let me monetize it when I tried.


----------



## Rydian (May 17, 2013)

The Real Jdbye said:


> You're not supposed to monetize videos that have content you don't own in them anyway. The youtube partner page specifically mentions video game footage as one thing that can't be monetized. It's all I have on my channel and youtube wouldn't even let me monetize it when I tried.


_Where are you getting this?_  I've monetized plenty of non-Nintendo video game stuff, I've seen no mention of this and nothing has happened to my videos.


----------



## tronic307 (May 17, 2013)

maniax300 said:


> Eh, at least they won't take it down?


If the videos in question are illegal, simply remove them. Nintendon't get to decide that they are legal enough to allow, but illegal enough to take the profit. Grey area. Let's see a lawsuit.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 17, 2013)

Rydian said:


> I've monetized plenty of non-Nintendo video game stuff.


What's your youtube channel?


----------



## Rydian (May 17, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> What's your youtube channel?


http://www.youtube.com/user/rydianmorrison

Monetized video game videos are mostly Minecraft and Terraria, since that's what I was actively playing when I got monetized, and I've since stopped bothering to put ads on my videos since nobody watches them enough to even earn me $1.





etc.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 17, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> If the videos in question are illegal, simply remove them. Nintendon't get to decide that they are legal enough to allow, but illegal enough to take the profit. Grey area. Let's see a lawsuit.



Assuming they are not pulling trademark law (and this appears to be copyright they are using) then legally they do get choose to remove it or not or something in between (only allowing noncommercial use being one of those somethings), they could even vary completely arbitrarily between different people if they wanted to.


----------



## rupok93 (May 17, 2013)

There is no point in discussing law. Laws are always way behind their time, its 100% guranteed that what nintendo and google are doing is legal, however that doesn't make it right or in line with common sense.


----------



## RedCoreZero (May 18, 2013)

Well, so, if I uploaded an animation of Metroid Blast promoting it, put ads and Nintendo gets paid, they are getting for me advertising their own product. lol


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 18, 2013)

If I record running my homebrew apps on my Wii, do I have to pay Nintendo?


----------



## dehry (May 18, 2013)

maniax300 said:


> Well, so, if I uploaded an animation of Metroid Blast promoting it, put ads and Nintendo gets paid, they are getting for me advertising their own product. lol


No, If you buy a copy of Metroid Blast Nintendoland and use a capture card (or ROM, can't be giving Nintendo money now can we?) to play a certain amount of the game (probably 5-10 minutes) full screen while overreacting/cursing and letting cutscenes run without commentary, Nintendo will put an ad on it.


Now, if you were to draw Samus in an original animation without game assets (sprites/sound effects) it won't have an ad on it.

E: Just watch, Sony will put an ad on all that Share button recorded content. I wouldn't put it past Microsoft too.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 18, 2013)

maniax300 said:


> Well, so, if I uploaded an animation of Metroid Blast promoting it, put ads and Nintendo gets paid, they are getting for me advertising their own product. lol


 
Use AdBlock. Problem solved.


----------



## Mario92 (May 18, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Use AdBlock. Problem solved.


Actually opposite. Then nobody gets them youtube moneyz. The main problem with this was nintendo getting money that let's players should/shouldn't get and actually some reviews will be directed to nintendo as well! If nobody gets money then there's no reason to make content to begin with and all nintendo related content on youtube will be a) amateur'sh off cam records b) nintendo's own ads.
Usually channels that try to make money are partnershipped with some network (machinima, TGS, e.g.) which makes it easier to show game content on their channel. Regular folk trying to make amateurish let's play with almost zero views it doesn't matter who gets the money 'cause it's under $1 for them 

Just disable adblocks on youtube, most ads are OK or hideable/skippable and it's more likely to get better content in future. That's how life works: nothing is free and usually free content are paid by ads.
FYI: Also this forum is powered by ads :3


----------



## Tigran (May 18, 2013)

BTW... Nintendo isn't the first to do this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...t-Prohibits-Gamers-From-Cashing-in-on-YouTube... but hey... Always hate on Nintendo.. right?


----------



## Eerpow (May 18, 2013)

Tigran said:


> BTW... Nintendo isn't the first to do this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...t-Prohibits-Gamers-From-Cashing-in-on-YouTube... but hey... Always hate on Nintendo.. right?


Does Microsoft still do this? That article is from last year.


----------



## TheDreamLord (May 18, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> Eh? You seriously compare sports commentators with LPers? A sports commentator works for a TV station that purchases necessary rights for the content to broadcast while LPers make their own content off of other people's property without permission.


Covered by fair use, yes.  I've a partnership, and it's perfectly legal for me to monetise my content as long as I commentate.


----------



## RedCoreZero (May 18, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Use AdBlock. Problem solved.



I already do. I'm curious when this tool will be taken down as it causes troubles with companies and websites. lol it will still be legal,ha.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 18, 2013)

A large majority of people still don't use AdBlock and honestly if you care for a business that runs on ads you'll be considerate enough to whitelist them.

There's other ways of "punishing" AdBlock users too. Recently blip.tv (they run a lot of webshows like RedLetterMedia, where I get this example from, and I think That Guy With the Glasses) basically put a 90 second wait on AdBlock users but if you don't use AdBlock it's just a 30 second ad. So I eventually whitelisted the RedLetterMedia page so I just sit through the ad. Plus they're a great business and they deserve the ad revenue.

But I digress. Regarding the "well microsoft did it", just because someone else did it doesn't mean this is any less bad. Plus that's from a year ago and I never recalled it being a thing.


----------



## Mantis41 (May 18, 2013)

Nintendo is pulling a Sony. Profits falling? I know! Let's whip our fans. Yup! That is bound to work.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 18, 2013)

Tigran said:


> BTW... Nintendo isn't the first to do this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...t-Prohibits-Gamers-From-Cashing-in-on-YouTube... but hey... Always hate on Nintendo Sony, EA, and Activision.. right?


 
Microsoft Studios publishes... Halo... Viva Pinata... and other stuff. That's about it. And other stuff that no one could care less about. I'm not even sure if they still do this, considering this was last year. For chrissake, it's like saying that if oil company A had an oil spill in 2012, and oil company B had an oil spill in 2013, oil company A is worse because it had an oil spill first. It's just a ridiculous line of reasoning.

You're in the wrong place if you want to see people hate Nintendo. I have seen very few people particularly hate Nintendo prior to this, except for angsty 14 year olds that lolz out on Modern Warfare. It's mostly because of their original titles. You can't claim that this odd begrudging respect towards Nintendo's decision has nothing to do with the respect that the gaming community has given to them. I'm almost positive that the backlash would've reached disproportionate levels if EA had done this. The internets (including this forum, youtube, twitter, and basically everywhere) would've totally fucking flipped out way more than now. If it was a company that was as hated by the gaming community as EA is (due to being considered as the worst company in America by an internet poll) everyone would've went insane, even these people that think Nintendo's decision is reasonable.

Recently, I've been watching a lot of Youtube videos, and the majority of them are LPers or just people who make videos based on games. I follow LPers and game channels for three reasons: 1. They have interesting commentary, 2. They're normally very entertaining due to their jokes, reactions, animation, and editing, and 3. They allow me to see games I would've never gotten in the first place. For example, I would have, in no way, gotten Don't Starve if I didn't see it on some of the channels I follow. Nor would I have played Amnesia.. The majority of these channels I follow, as far as I'm aware of, are monetized on Youtube. TotalBiscuit, Pewdiepie, Yogscast, Husky, Bluexephos, etc. These people rely on the income and the popularity to both sustain themselves and branch out. For example, TotalBiscuit is partnered with multiple companies that regularly ask him to promote and owns several e-sports teams. Husky, due to his popularity, is now a popular e-sports commentator and mentor. Both of them started out as plain LP'ers, the majority of which made it their living to churn out 3 videos a day and edit each video for 3-4 hours. It's an actual, legitimate job. Nearly every successful LPer does more than "plays games and makes random jokes," unless your name is PewDiePie.

What I'm saying is that Nintendo is, in theory, hurting both themselves and the thriving gaming community found on Youtube. I believe that in comparison to Nintendo's actual revenue, the monetary compensation they get from Youtube ads is minimal. The Youtube gaming community, believe it or not, has an inordinate amount of influence on a fraction of the gaming community, and the majority of these people are monetized like the ones I just mentioned. TotalBiscuit himself champions Fire Emblem Awakening as the 3DS's best game, a Nintendo published title. Essentially, this discourages Youtube gamers, especially the big names, to create videos with footage of Nintendo games, which causes them to lose out on essentially free advertising. They need this free advertising now more than ever, with the struggle to find support for the WiiU. It's not even just LP's I think. There's also first impressions, reviews, parody videos, and many more.

I don't even want to get into the whole "copyright" or whatever debate. It's all about fair use. No one in hell watches LPs or any other gaming video just to watch someone play it from start to finish in it's entirety. People watch it to understand more about the game or to be entertained, both of which come from the commentators. In that case, it's not Nintendo's to keep, especially if they don't want the entire gaming community against them. Someone at Nintendo's marketing division must've been really stupid if he/she thought that providing less incentive for people on Youtube to give them free advertising towards a large fraction of the gaming market in exchange for what is virtually pocket change to Nintendo is a good idea.



WiiUBricker said:


> And yes, LPler is not a real job. If you have a job interview in the future, what do you intend to say to your employer? That you made your money with sharing videos of other's intellectual property? Well, good luck for your next interview then.


... There are a lot of people who do this as their full time job. There are people who are essentially well-of from doing them, there are people who thrive on doing them. But like it or not, basically anything that earns you a sustainable income and doesn't involve you going into crime or selling your body is a job. There are people whose jobs are to show up to places and sign autographs. LPers put in hell of a lot more effort than those guys. I am familiar with ones that churn out videos until 2AM in the morning and edit for hours on end. It's not as hard as say, a construction worker, but there is a level of effort and creativity that successful LPers have that make them such. Youtube money is as good as any. Calling their line of work illegitimate ignores the effort that they put towards creating these videos and sustaining their fanbase.



tronic307 said:


> If the videos in question are illegal, simply remove them. Nintendon't get to decide that they are legal enough to allow, but illegal enough to take the profit. Grey area. Let's see a lawsuit.


Not really. That is a bad, bad, bad idea in every way conceivable. Not only do they not get anything out of taking them down, but they also alienate a portion of their fanbase. A lawsuit would make it worse. It's not about law. This is all about what they're trying to do. They're trying to make sure that they still stay visible on the web, but that they make money on it. I believe that this was their line of thought, but it backfired pretty heavily on them.

Feels good to be back.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 18, 2013)

Mantis41 said:


> Nintendo is pulling a Sony. Profits falling? I know! Let's whip our fans. Yup! That is bound to work.


 
Sony doesn't do that but okay whatever floats your fictional boat.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 18, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Recently blip.tv (they run a lot of webshows like RedLetterMedia, where I get this example from, and I think That Guy With the Glasses) basically put a 90 second wait on AdBlock users but if you don't use AdBlock it's just a 30 second ad. So I eventually whitelisted the RedLetterMedia page so I just sit through the ad. Plus they're a great business and they deserve the ad revenue.



I on the other hand begrudgingly added a new greasemonkey script to allow me to download them instead.

Re taking down adblock.... it would be the whole hacking tools debate again and as browsers have such functionality baked into them by design (I can choose to display pictures, objects or not)....

Back on topic.


TheDreamLord said:


> Covered by fair use, yes.  I've a partnership, and it's perfectly legal for me to monetise my content as long as I commentate.



Isn't this was several people in the thread have been trying to establish so far? What is fair use, what amounts to an additional work and where do various lines get drawn within that?


----------



## Rydian (May 18, 2013)

dehry said:


> No, If you buy a copy of Metroid Blast Nintendoland and use a capture card (or ROM, can't be giving Nintendo money now can we?)


There's no way to play Wii U ISOs, and no way to play 3DS ROMs (the two main categories of games being discussed here).

So the youtubers in question here were using physical games as far as I've seen.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (May 18, 2013)

Rydian said:


> _Where are you getting this?_ I've monetized plenty of non-Nintendo video game stuff, I've seen no mention of this and nothing has happened to my videos.





			
				From the Youtube Monetization page said:
			
		

> Your video is not eligible if it contains content that you didn't create or get permission from its creator to use. You need to be able to show written permission for the following video elements:
> 
> Audio: recorded music, live performances, cover songs, background music, etc.
> Visuals: images, logos, software, *video game footage*, etc.
> Any other content you don't own worldwide commercial usage rights to.


Here: https://www.youtube.com/account_monetization

Edit: Most of my gaming videos are monetized, only some were detected as having third party content. But that doesn't change the fact that according to their terms those videos should not be monetized.


----------



## Rydian (May 18, 2013)

Ah, I had to go deeper to see it, I wonder if that's recent.


----------



## Arras (May 18, 2013)

So basically Youtube reserves the right to fuck all LPers in the ass. That's good to know.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 18, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> A large majority of people still don't use AdBlock and honestly if you care for a business that runs on ads you'll be considerate enough to whitelist them.
> 
> There's other ways of "punishing" AdBlock users too. Recently blip.tv (they run a lot of webshows like RedLetterMedia, where I get this example from, and I think That Guy With the Glasses) basically put a 90 second wait on AdBlock users but if you don't use AdBlock it's just a 30 second ad. So I eventually whitelisted the RedLetterMedia page so I just sit through the ad. Plus they're a great business and they deserve the ad revenue.
> 
> But I digress. Regarding the "well microsoft did it", just because someone else did it doesn't mean this is any less bad. Plus that's from a year ago and I never recalled it being a thing.


 
You're right though, I can whitelist Nintendo's ads, but I'll blacklist the crap I couldn't care less for; Nintendo can use all the revenue they can get


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 18, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> You're right though, I can whitelist Nintendo's ads, but I'll blacklist the crap I couldn't care less for; Nintendo can use all the revenue they can get


... This is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that an LPer who's living off of the money he makes on his ads needs more revenue than an international company that made two of the best-selling video game devices of all time. The concept that you need to make sure that a global company makes pennies off of a Youtube ad is ridiculous considering they make billions.

Allow me to go into my semi-anarchist mode. "It's a corporation maaaaaan! Corporations just want to fucking run your pockets dryyyyyyyyyyyy."


----------



## FAST6191 (May 18, 2013)

Arras said:


> So basically Youtube reserves the right to fuck all LPers in the ass. That's good to know.


Do they or were all Let's Play makers enjoying a free ride that is gradually coming to an end?


----------



## the_randomizer (May 18, 2013)

KingdomBlade said:


> ... This is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that an LPer who's living off of the money he makes on his ads needs more revenue than an international company that made two of the best-selling video game devices of all time. The concept that you need to make sure that a global company makes pennies off of a Youtube ad is ridiculous considering they make billions.
> 
> Allow me to go into my semi-anarchist mode. "It's a corporation maaaaaan! Corporations just want to fucking run your pockets dryyyyyyyyyyyy."


 
To quote Homer Simpson when he steals cable, "Cable companies are big faceless corporations, which makes it okay!" My videos have never made money as I never get the views to even be considered for being monetized. So if it didn't affect me then, it probably won't affect me now. Of, just make videos that show Sega or Sony gameplay instead.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 18, 2013)

Let me get this straight... I pay for the game and give them free advertising with the let's play... And Nintendo gets to keep what little ad revenue I would get?

Seems legit.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 18, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Do they or were all Let's Play makers enjoying a free ride that is gradually coming to an end?


I disagree. While this shit will fade away in the future when Youtube dies, LP's are growing further in popularity. Look at Tobuscus or PewDiePie or Yogscast's rapidly growing subscriber and view numbers. I doubt that Youtube will want to deny themselves that kind of traffic by declining them from monetizing their videos, and I doubt that developers or publishers will want to deny themselves of that kind of fan love or free advertising, unless you're Nintendo or Sega. Additionally, the rapidly growing number of indie titles that grow huge on Youtube show that it's a legitimate platform for fans to promote games. If anything, the backlash towards this shows how important this community is to gaming in general.

And it's not just Let's Plays that grow huge on Youtube. A large majority of game reviews with footage shown and maybe even fan tributes could be affected in this kind of issue as well, and that means that we lose intriguing critique and solid entertainment. I doubt that that'll happen.



the_randomizer said:


> To quote Homer Simpson when he steals cable, "Cable companies are big faceless corporations, which makes it okay!" My videos have never made money as I never get the views to even be considered for being monetized. So if it didn't affect me then, it probably won't affect me now. Of, just make videos that show Sega or Sony gameplay instead.


Funny you should say that when Sega went totally ballistic in cock blocking Shining Force videos a few months ago.  Anyways, the majority of the current Let's Players have grown to have a certain fondness for Indie gaming, such as the games found of Steam Greenlight or Humble Bundles. I actually credit them, in part, for the sudden surge of indie games. That can only be a good thing.


----------



## Fishaman P (May 18, 2013)

People whining that Ninty is taking away moniez from videos _that aren't supposed to be eligible?_ Gooby plz.
What sucks is that they're sending DMCA takedown notices to speedrunners, myself included.
_I don't even have monetization enabled._


----------



## RodrigoDavy (May 18, 2013)

It's people's fault for relying on copyrighted content. About almost every video game themed video I've watched has at least one image or music from Nintendo, even when it's not pertinent to the subject of the video. Also, no one ever said that youtube was a safe way to make money in the long term.


----------



## gamefan5 (May 18, 2013)

Hmm...


----------



## FAST6191 (May 18, 2013)

KingdomBlade said:


> I disagree. While this shit will fade away in the future when Youtube dies, LP's are growing further in popularity. Look at Tobuscus or PewDiePie or Yogscast's rapidly growing subscriber and view numbers. I doubt that Youtube will want to deny themselves that kind of traffic by declining them from monetizing their videos, and I doubt that developers or publishers will want to deny themselves of that kind of fan love or free advertising, unless you're Nintendo or Sega. Additionally, the rapidly growing number of indie titles that grow huge on Youtube show that it's a legitimate platform for fans to promote games. If anything, the backlash towards this shows how important this community is to gaming in general.
> 
> A large majority of game reviews with footage shown and maybe even fan tributes could be affected in this kind of issue as well, and that means that we lose intriguing critique and solid entertainment. I doubt that that'll happen.



Most of that seems irrelevant in light of someone being able to say "but copyright law says otherwise". My favourite example/analogy at this point might be something like "I am gutted I can not start my asbestos installation business in 2013 where in 1980 it would have been booming".
I am sure Youtube would hate to deny themselves some of the pie but the law is a scary beast.
Likewise companies and youtube themselves do appreciate that a departure from ultra strict copyright enforcement is a good thing (they have some great ted videos that touch upon it, this one probably being one of the more relevant ones) so I am not sure doom and gloom is the likely future. Indeed Nintendo not going full "lock it down and wipe it all out" says as much.

Reviews.... I do not know if you mean that the automated tech that does it could trouble things or that in general it will. The former could pose a problem but the latter is a fairly clear cut exemption to copyright (the criticism or review part), now there have already been issues with this (a few people doing film reviews most notably) and their policies on the matter have come under fire (if you appeal and it fails it is quite bad and not just "heh it failed"). Tributes are an odd one, we possibly then touch upon fan fiction for something about as close as I can think of for a comparable issue and that is a long considered and interesting area ( http://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html being a pretty good link at this point).


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 18, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Most of that seems irrelevant in light of someone being able to say "but copyright law says otherwise". My favourite example/analogy at this point might be something like "I am gutted I can not start my asbestos installation business in 2013 where in 1980 it would have been booming".
> I am sure Youtube would hate to deny themselves some of the pie but the law is a scary beast.
> Likewise companies and youtube themselves do appreciate that a departure from ultra strict copyright enforcement is a good thing (they have some great ted videos that touch upon it, this one probably being one of the more relevant ones) so I am not sure doom and gloom is the likely future. Indeed Nintendo not going full "lock it down and wipe it all out" says as much.
> 
> Reviews.... I do not know if you mean that the automated tech that does it could trouble things or that in general it will. The former could pose a problem but the latter is a fairly clear cut exemption to copyright (the criticism or review part), now there have already been issues with this (a few people doing film reviews most notably) and their policies on the matter have come under fire (if you appeal and it fails it is quite bad and not just "heh it failed"). Tributes are an odd one, we possibly then touch upon fan fiction for something about as close as I can think of for a comparable issue and that is a long considered and interesting area ( http://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html being a pretty good link at this point).


 
Exactly. I doubt that any company would themselves deny trying to create an active online fanbase that shares content, information, and feedback with one another. Than can only help your game's reputation and status grow. Very few major game companies have actually done the whole "we will destroy your copyright stuff on youtube;" the latest I can think of is SEGA but as that was with only one game and it was less due to copyright claim and more because SEGA was extremely butthurt. They can't deny gamers the right to post on Youtube as the medium is significantly more reliant on an online community that it partially thrives upon. To say it simply, they're more "connected," especially the indie gaming scene AND the competitive gaming scene that the Youtube community glorifies quite heavily. Take for example, the success of Slender. Why was it such a hit? It was a hit due to the fact that, other than it being scary, it developed a large following on Youtube and the rest of the internet. Face-cam playthroughs spread like wildfire. Obviously, the dev allowed it just fine, which made the sequel largely a success.

Obviously, criticism is important. That's why it's important to encourage gamers to review, criticize, or give their impressions of a game in a more visual medium. If it gets too out of hand, they could claim that unauthorized footage being used in the video is subject to copyright, which it isn't, since it aids in the critique and that is it's primary purpose. Tributes are probably important too, since they normally serve to both entertain and to glorify the game or series in question, but it might also be subject to copyright, moreso than reviews. However, both are essentially pillars of the scene and I doubt that any gaming company would want to force remove either.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 18, 2013)

KingdomBlade said:


> Exactly. I doubt that any company would themselves deny trying to create an active online fanbase that shares content, information, and feedback with one another. That can only help your game's reputation and status grow. Very few major game companies have actually done the whole "we will destroy your copyright stuff on youtube;" the latest I can think of is SEGA but as that was with only one game and it was less due to copyright claim and more because SEGA was extremely butthurt. They can't deny gamers the right to post on Youtube as the medium is significantly more reliant on an online community that it partially thrives upon. To say it simply, they're more "connected," especially the indie gaming scene AND the competitive gaming scene that the Youtube community glorifies quite heavily. Take for example, the success of Slender. Why was it such a hit? It was a hit due to the fact that, other than it being scary, it developed a large following on Youtube and the rest of the internet. Face-cam playthroughs spread like wildfire. Obviously, the dev allowed it just fine, which made the sequel largely a success.
> 
> Obviously, criticism is important. That's why it's important to encourage gamers to review, criticize, or give their impressions of a game in a more visual medium. If it gets too out of hand, they could claim that unauthorized footage being used in the video is subject to copyright, which it isn't, since it aids in the critique and that is it's primary purpose. Tributes are probably important too, since they normally serve to both entertain and to glorify the game or series in question, but it might also be subject to copyright, moreso than reviews. However, both are essentially pillars of the scene and I doubt that any gaming company would want to force remove either.



Certainly it is a foolish company that, in the present day and age, does not attempt to cultivate a fanbase and community around a franchise or some grouping that includes the game (thinking dev/pub specific forums rather than something new per game).

"They can't deny gamers the right to post on Youtube"
The phrasing seems a bit off there if you want to read it that way; they can deny people the right to post footage (save for the traditional satire, education, criticism/review exemptions and whatever other aspects of fair use extend to these days), it would just be remarkably unwise to do it in a blanket manner.

That said on tributes and playthroughs. That is a potentially interesting again for you may actually wish to prune some of that if the players are incompetent (whether in general or as an act -- I am sure we have seen those Let's play videos) -- perception is reality, nobody moves beyond the first page of a search, nobody watches more than the first 5 minutes and other such phrases. I suppose the classic one might be Sega's Blast processing nonsense



Many here might recognise mode 7 in the mario kart game used as a point of comparison which was a pretty big deal in 2d (3d?) animation history and as a technologist if there was ever going to be a game I would not compare to in this regard it would be that (or maybe Fzero). The advert worked though and thus we have the issue that you might not want the most popular video being some bellend that did not read the manuals, do the tutorial or put the effort in and attempted a playthrough.
More generally reviewers/press are kept under NDA for a lot of news, game reviews and even basic stats and film criticism has the whole "if the film does not screen ahead of time for press then" thing. Hell we have even seen *trailers* that leaked ahead of time pulled so the "maximum impact" might be felt.
Could this not then be an extension of that? Especially if monetisation is involved as it then makes you a professional of a sort.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 18, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Certainly it is a foolish company that, in the present day and age, does not attempt to cultivate a fanbase and community around a franchise or some grouping that includes the game (thinking dev/pub specific forums rather than something new per game).
> 
> "They can't deny gamers the right to post on Youtube"
> The phrasing seems a bit off there if you want to read it that way; they can deny people the right to post footage (save for the traditional satire, education, criticism/review exemptions and whatever other aspects of fair use extend to these days), it would just be remarkably unwise to do it in a blanket manner.
> ...




Yeah, the phrasing of that was off, sorry. I mean, they can't deny gamers the right to post on youtube if they don't want them to just totally fucking revolt. By they "can't" I actually mean "they shouldn't or this will be very bad for them."

Not necessarily, I think. Surely, serious playthroughs or depictions of a game are always present for every serious game. However, for example, I doubt that I'd ever want a serious playthrough of Slender as the very first one. =I think that the majority of playthroughs have some effort of skill placed into them, unless your videos rely on laughs or entertainment, such as Tobuscus. I mean, I've watched numerous playthroughs of various games, and the majority play the game well and seriously, and are at least fairly familiar with the gameplay mechanics. Few people actually want to see bad gamers, unless they're being bad for the laughs, in which case the game is probably either scary or laughable.

Most youtubers that are directly associated as part of the press are also under regulation such as embargo. The companies treat footage seriously, in the sense that youtubers associated as the press are unable to post gameplay footage on their channel until they allow it. However, the youtubers assume that if a company does not enforce an embargo, they are under free reign to post footage as soon as they can make it, thus promoting the game earlier than most people. I mean, most developers are keen on releasing demos to people who show footage and allowing people access to gameplay footage, which obviously signals that developers have an important association with the community of gamers. Not everyone can go to E3 or events and such, or not everyone is willing to play demos that are released by devs, so the ability to show footage through these youtube gamers is a great alternative.


----------



## tronic307 (May 18, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Assuming they are not pulling trademark law (and this appears to be copyright they are using) then legally they do get choose to remove it or not or something in between (only allowing noncommercial use being one of those somethings), they could even vary completely arbitrarily between different people if they wanted to.


Yeah? Well, so they *can*, but should they? I can't see their angle, I mean; do they really need the income? Seems more like Nintendo wants to maintain an iron grip on the way their games are perceived than anything else.


----------



## RedCoreZero (May 18, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> A large majority of people still don't use AdBlock and honestly if you care for a business that runs on ads you'll be considerate enough to whitelist them.
> 
> There's other ways of "punishing" AdBlock users too. Recently blip.tv (they run a lot of webshows like RedLetterMedia, where I get this example from, and I think That Guy With the Glasses) basically put a 90 second wait on AdBlock users but if you don't use AdBlock it's just a 30 second ad. So I eventually whitelisted the RedLetterMedia page so I just sit through the ad. Plus they're a great business and they deserve the ad revenue.
> 
> But I digress. Regarding the "well microsoft did it", just because someone else did it doesn't mean this is any less bad. Plus that's from a year ago and I never recalled it being a thing.


 
I knew the Guy With the Glasses was a god. I never click ads, as they lead into bullshit. Yes, they do well deserve the money. And, if I really liked them, I would click those ads for no apparent reason and close the tab. Still curious to watch as companies burn and die.


----------



## Lestworth (May 19, 2013)

I've had the guilty pleasure of watching some viewpoints from peoples videos on youtube about this subject, and it has enlightened a point I did not see before.

As we all know Nintendo has been behind the ball with technology for quite some time. So we can all assume that Youtube is something new to the company in attempting to exploit it, without actually knowing what in the hell they are doing. This is actually an incredibly reasonable idea, though it also feels like something a Nintendo fanboy would say to protect the company. Nintendo's past with things such as this have been less then credible as it is anyways.

The mentality of "well why should I care, I still view it, screw the Lp'ers anyways! " is just pure jealously over someone who actually enjoys their JOB.  It is, its nothing short of someone reading this, and laughing " ha ha ha ha, you deserve it! " Its a disgusting habit that has only grown in America because the job market for the majority of the country absolutely blows, forcing people who graduated college to take jobs of high school diploma requirements. Think of this logically, would you want these people to be in YOUR market as you search for a job? NO, it would only crowd that market even more!

The horrible thing about all this is that even if these said Lp'ers attempt to take this to court as a group lawsuit on the company, the resulting decision could be a negative or positive outcome according the judges view on this subject. It is obvious, even on these forums, that people have a VERY NEGATIVE, and VERY POSITIVE views on this subject as it is, it would be impossible to gain an absolute choice that both parties would agree to. This would mean that even after the judge gives his/her verdict, they will appeal it and demand another verdict. This would be tied up in the court system for an incredibly long time.

I think Nintendo jumped the gun with zero research, and they are getting the appropriate backlash from the community. Nintendo has been notorious for being bullheaded so this will be around for sometime, and that's a shame, as the quality of videos will diminish.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 19, 2013)

Lestworth said:


> I've had the guilty pleasure of watching some viewpoints from peoples videos on youtube about this subject, and it has enlightened a point I did not see before.
> 
> As we all know Nintendo has been behind the ball with technology for quite some time. So we can all assume that Youtube is something new to the company in attempting to exploit it, without actually knowing what in the hell they are doing. This is actually an incredibly reasonable idea, though it also feels like something a Nintendo fanboy would say to protect the company. Nintendo's past with things such as this have been less then credible as it is anyways.
> 
> ...


I was thinking the exact same thing about the LPers enjoying their jobs, but didn't feel like bothering with a post. Who is anyone to tell them to "get a real job"? What defines a " real job"? Last I checked, if it involves work on your part and getting paid, it's a job. LPers generally put a lot of money and effort into getting the capture software and/or hardware, the right PC, consoles and games, and many hours into actually playing the games. Sure, I suppose you can argue " but if they're gamers, they'd be logging those play hours anyway." Maybe they would, but I doubt most of them would be doing it on a regular schedule, with often constant commentary and/or wit for the enjoyment of the viewer.

To make a long story short, a lot of money and time (which the person may have very little of) is invested in LPs. You could almost argue that's it's like being a contractor, with YouTube, viewers, and advertisers as your clients. To say that making gameplay videos on YouTube " isn't a real job" is just absurd.


----------



## weavile001 (May 19, 2013)

gamefan5 said:


> Hmm...



my eyes are like this:


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 19, 2013)

LPs are easy. Good LPs are really quite hard.

I mean anyone can sit down, play a video game, and record themselves doing it. But to make it interesting, to give it a cutting edge, that takes ingenuity. Unfortunately that also means we get PewDiePie from it.

Still to say LPs aren't a "real job" or, hell, any internet video in general (this policy could extend to reviews, speedruns, montages, etc) is really quite elitist and stupid to say. It's an exciting new frontier in jobs, and it'd suck if it got hampered by a really dumb enforcement of policy.


----------



## PityOnU (May 19, 2013)

If any of you get a chance, listen to TotalBiscuit's take on this whole thing. It sums it up rather well, I believe.

Other people may be different, but I know that although I watch a lot of "Let's Play" content (~3-5 hours a day), I don't recall a point where I ever watched them for the actual game. I generally tune into "Let's Play" content because I enjoy the personality or the humor of the person or group that makes the video. The actual game running in the background serves as little more than a backdrop to any conversations/observations that occur outside of that. So really, when you think about it, I'm basically watching ~3-5 hours of advertising for a certain game each and every day while I'm listening to a podcast, so that's something to be considered.

I just hope this doesn't end up creating an environment similar to RiffTrax.

P.S. - As a side note, does anyone know why the average IQ of a YouTube commenter (at least based on post content) is like 45 below the population average? Those guys are animals.


----------



## Jan1tor (May 19, 2013)

weavile001 said:


> my eyes are like this:


Shouldn't the music be playing backwards in this video?


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 19, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> If any of you get a chance, listen to TotalBiscuit's take on this whole thing. It sums it up rather well, I believe.
> 
> Other people may be different, but I know that although I watch a lot of "Let's Play" content (~3-5 hours a day), I don't recall a point where I ever watched them for the actual game. I generally tune into "Let's Play" content because I enjoy the personality or the humor of the person or group that makes the video. The actual game running in the background serves as little more than a backdrop to any conversations/observations that occur outside of that. So really, when you think about it, I'm basically watching ~3-5 hours of advertising for a certain game each and every day while I'm listening to a podcast, so that's something to be considered.
> 
> ...


I just watched TotalBiscuit's take, and it's absolutely spot on. Probably the best and most unbiased commentary I've seen on the issue so far.

From him, he acknowledges that this could be a severely bad thing for Nintendo also. The majority of high profile Let's Players that have built up a fanbase that relies on them partially for information and commentary on Nintendo games will be discouraged to further pursue making these videos because they won't be able to generate any revenue on it, and thus Nintendo will lose out on essential marketing. They are alienating a significant chunk of their audience by alienating gamers that passionately push your games and your brand image on Youtube. The majority of the people who are high profile on Youtube are monetized in the first place, and do this as their job, so this will hurt Nintendo as much as it will hurt the gamers and the fans, perhaps even more. They are essentially revoking the ability of the people that clearly love their company to give them what is already free promotion in exchange for the money they make through ad revenue.

tl;dr They are fucking biting some of their most passionate fans and advocates in the ass, and that's really dickish. Thus, this is bad for pretty much everyone. It is bad for them, bad for fans, bad for consumers, bad for Yotubers and etc. There is virtually nothing good about it, regardless of who owns the property or not.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 19, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> Seems more like Nintendo wants to maintain an iron grip on the way their games are perceived than anything else.



Given that they and others in the industry pay an absolute fortune to advertising, marketing and related fields (sometimes the same or higher orders of magnitude than the game dev costs) that does not seem such an outlandish idea.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 19, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> LPs are easy. Good LPs are really quite hard.
> 
> I mean anyone can sit down, play a video game, and record themselves doing it. But to make it interesting, to give it a cutting edge, that takes ingenuity. Unfortunately that also means we get PewDiePie from it.
> 
> Still to say LPs aren't a "real job" or, hell, any internet video in general (this policy could extend to reviews, speedruns, montages, etc) is really quite elitist and stupid to say. It's an exciting new frontier in jobs, and it'd suck if it got hampered by a really dumb enforcement of policy.


Precisely. And the ones who make good LPs are generally going to be the ones that get popular, and hence make the LPer enough money to make that a source of income.

By the way, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the GameGrumps in all this. They're the only LP channel that my girlfriend and I watch religiously (not to mention the only "TV show" that I watch, period), and I think they're a perfect example. Not only are they downright hilarious to the point that people are animating and remixing their funniest moments (yes, really), but they actually have some pretty interesting, semi-serious discussions and debates about what really makes a game, etc. Is it mostly just stupid humor? Yeah, but it's made endearing by the fact that Jon and Arin are naturally really funny people, and the show is "them being themselves."

I highly doubt the majority of GameGrumps viewers watch the show for "free gameplay footage so I don't have to play the game," as much as they watch it for the commentary, and so many people have been introduced to more obscure games because of them. Heck, they even got me to buy Sonic '06 for Christ's sake, something that I would never do or enjoy (almost done with my playthrough, btw) if it weren't for the Grumps' humorous viewpoint on the whole situation. It's also one of their most popular LPs on the channel, which I highly doubt would be the case if it was just any other old LP of Sonic '06.


----------



## Rydian (May 19, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> Other people may be different, but I know that although I watch a lot of "Let's Play" content (~3-5 hours a day), I don't recall a point where I ever watched them for the actual game. I generally tune into "Let's Play" content because I enjoy the personality or the humor of the person or group that makes the video. The actual game running in the background serves as little more than a backdrop to any conversations/observations that occur outside of that. So really, when you think about it, I'm basically watching ~3-5 hours of advertising for a certain game each and every day while I'm listening to a podcast, so that's something to be considered.


Far Lands Or Bust is a great example of this concept.



That's episode #238.  over two hundred damned episodes of the guy just walking in one direction in (an older version of) Minecraft, exploring the terrain.



PityOnU said:


> P.S. - As a side note, does anyone know why the average IQ of a YouTube commenter (at least based on post content) is like 45 below the population average? Those guys are animals.


Children just getting their first taste of testosterone.


----------



## EzekielRage (May 19, 2013)

As a YouTube video creator (original content only) and hobby game designer (No fangames) I understand BOTH sides of the debatte and I'd like to share my thoughts on this.
First I'd like to start with technalities that DO NOT refelect my views:

As copyright holder Nintendo has every right to do with their stuff whatever the fuck they want
As player you are privileged to play a game somebody made for your enjoyment
When you pay for a game, it is not YOURS - it still belongs to the creator, you just have the right to play it since you paid for that right (this will be important later)
Per copyright you are not allowed to use any part of the game for your personal profit
Now with that being said, here are my sixteen dollars and seven cents for this topic:
Let's Play videos are a nice but ultimately redundant thing. It is like watching a football game on TV, really, where somebody else plays a game for your enjoyment. Entertaining? Of course! Redundant? Absolutely. Personally I watch A LOT of StarCraft II replays simply because I want to learn from the best. ESports are a new thing and will grow tremendously in the next few years, beyond the borders of conventional gaming. Unfortunately the entire discussion concentrates on let's play videos here and NOT on the real topic at hand.
You see, once you realize where Nintendo is going with this you see how far the impacts are. Smooth McGroove is a fantastic musician and his videos will be monetized by Nintendo as well since he acapella remixes Nintendo music. It is his own work and his own creation but he gets snabbed because he is a Nintendo fan. Stemage does this fantastic thing called Metroid Metal and he too will see the result of this. In both of these cases nothing happened yet, but it eventually will.
Because such is the nature of big companies. Those decisions are not made by the people that create the games, the people that write the music or even Iwata who is the standup guy for the decisions. Those decisions are made by a legal department, men in suits that never played a game and couldn't care less. And that is the entire problem.
Warner Brothers got rightfully sued by the creators of Nyan Cat for using Nyan Cat in Scribblenauts without asking. Yet the very same company, Warner Brothers, is a huge driving force behind suing other people for THEIR copyright, want to enact PIPA and SOPA and are all for control over the internet.
Now this relates to this topic. You see there are A LOT of people who upload soundtracks, cutscenes and other things from games to YouTube. The problem here lies within the fact that those people did nothing but just upload other people's work and get paid for it, if monetizing is available. And this is where the idea originated: Nintendo wanted people not to get money for their work. Harmless enough.
But the problem lies deeper: Let's players who ultimately invest tons of hours into a game and even some time and work into a GOOD let's play get snubbed over. Remixers and re-creators that do homages and sometimes even completely self made things get the boot because they use things owned by Nintendo. It has been like that for movies since years, and now Nintendo was the first to do the same thing. I have a video on my channel, 100% self made stuff that was blocked for monetizing because a scene in it LOOKED SIMILAR to a scene from a movie and thus they believed that scene could be from that movie and they shut of monetizing.
Now the main question is, should you be able to get money from something you did not create yourself and if you did create it yourself in parts, how far does that effect the monetizing of your work in contrast to Nintendo's work?
I go back to Smooth McGroove since he is a great guy. As said, he created acapella music of videogame tunes. He does it all himself, he uses famous melodies. Similar to what Nick Pitera does, really. So he has 100% of the work, except for that fact that he uses tunes by other people.
Companies, especially Nintendo, want to keep their franchises safe above all else. They don't want people to use their stuff because it's about branding. They shut down a porn parody of super Mario because Mario does not do porn. Nobody cared that the movie was bad and a parody, it was shut down. Because branding matters. 
Since you don't own the game you bought (see, I told you that gets important) you are only allowed to play it. You are not allowed to do anything else with it. And if your penis doesn't fit into the disc hole (poor you if it does) what else can you do with a game anyways? Record it of course. But you are not allowed to since technically its not your game.
So how can we fix this? Not really. It's up to the companies to think about that. Nintendo wants you to use their service for their stuff. That is the sole reason Sony created the share button for the PS4. Not to make life easier for you, but to control where you upload your let's plays. Or do you think Sony will pay you for uploading something to their station?
Here are a few things Nintendo COULD do:

Split monetizing: Have a standard deal contractually settled for everyone who has original work with Nintendo content. They did that with Twilight Symphony. They check if your work is okay by their rules and if it is they split the money you/they get from the video. Probably not going to happen since it is a long and expensive process.
Monetize only for 1:1 content: Just monetize things that are unchanged like soundtrack videos or cutscenes. Probably not going to happen due to manpower being involved
Establish new rules for monetizing: By establishing new rules, they could easily agree that Let's Players, reviewers and the likes may use their stuff. Very likely since this is what needs to happen anyway. If you do a video review or a lets play or a remix of one of their tunes, Nintendo does not monetize since you created this to support them and their games. This can easily be done with a simple checkbox or tag.
There are of course other things that could be done but for now we have to live with the fact that other companies WILL follow suit. Nintendo was the first to do so and will not be the last so get ready for this discussion to go on.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 19, 2013)

I agree with you, EzekielRage (not quoting because long quotes are obnoxious), split revenue should be the way to go. True, it is Nintendo's games, but it is YOUR work, your recording, commentary, creation, etc involved... So who says that Nintendo has a right to get ALL revenue off your video?

Split revenue (perhaps Nintendo gets a certain percentage of ads on your video, but not all of them) would be the only fair way to go, in my opinion.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 19, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> True, it is Nintendo's games, but it is YOUR work, your recording, commentary, creation, etc involved... So who says that Nintendo has a right to get ALL revenue off your video?



Copyright law, it is called a derived work.


----------



## ilman (May 19, 2013)

I'm no lawyer (even though I've played a lot of Phoenix Wright ) but how do I say this? The content is neither Nintendo's, nor the Youtuber's(since this concerns more than LPers).
If we have only Nintendo, their game won't be played, recorded and uploaded to Youtube. Nintendo gets no marketing, but at the same time nobody gets to experience their content for free. 
If we have only the Youtuber, their content wouldn't be possible without Nintendo's content(LPers won't have anything to commentate, Reviewers won't have anything to review, etc.)
In the end, the content is a result of both Nintendo's work and the Youtubers. That's why the ad revenue for the video should be split between the two.
But, of course, law comes in and it just can't allow for split revenue(at least I don't think it can).
So...the law is worse than the mafia.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 19, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Copyright law, it is called a derived work.


It was a rhetorical question. Of course the law says that, unfortunately. But I really don't think it should.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 19, 2013)

@xwatchmanx I think that was one of those what happens when the rhetorical question meets the glib remark situations.



ilman said:


> I'm no lawyer (even though I've played a lot of Phoenix Wright ) but how do I say this? The content is neither Nintendo's, nor the Youtuber's(since this concerns more than LPers).
> If we have only Nintendo, their game won't be played, recorded and uploaded to Youtube. Nintendo gets no marketing, but at the same time nobody gets to experience their content for free.
> If we have only the Youtuber, their content wouldn't be possible without Nintendo's content(LPers won't have anything to commentate, Reviewers won't have anything to review, etc.)
> In the end, the content is a result of both Nintendo's work and the Youtubers. That's why the ad revenue for the video should be split between the two.
> ...



Re lawyering and phoenix wright, at least as far as non Japanese law (though even there it is of dubious merit) goes that is for the best.
As for the rest reviews and criticism are one of the big three noted exceptions to copyright (the other two being satire and education) so this does mainly concern let's play, tribute and stuff that is not reviewing, satire or criticism.
I do not think anybody is doubting that producing video content can be a very involved task however to spin it another way I do not think anybody doubts making a coherent mix of a song or song from samples is a very involved task but it still does not mean sampling should be free. As Nintendo was there first...
Recompense for work in this scenario usually does end up in front of a judge where most of it is either fines or perhaps more applicably in cases of patent infringement though both of those tend to be "out of court" settlements. The enforcement issue also becomes tricky (this message brought to you by FAST6191's ROM hacking guide -- it is a guide to ROM hacking) if youtube is not the sole advertiser.

Finally a question for those more versed in Japanese web stuff than I -- it seems the whole Japan has the same tech but does it different thing has reappeared here (see Winny for a nice earlier example) and though Japan does use youtube I can not let nicovideo and possibly zoome slip by unnoticed. What has Nintendo done there both in general and maybe on this sort of thing?


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2013)

Update: Nintendo will not remove videos of LPs

"As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database. For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property."

http://www.gamefront.com/nintendo-flexing-copyright-clout-on-youtube-lets-play-channels/


----------



## Lestworth (May 20, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Update: Nintendo will not remove videos of LPs
> 
> "As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database. For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property."
> 
> http://www.gamefront.com/nintendo-flexing-copyright-clout-on-youtube-lets-play-channels/


 This ... really isn't news for anyone, we already knew Nintendo's stance on this as it was, and their lack of clarity on it as well.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 20, 2013)

EzekielRage said:


> So how can we fix this? Not really. It's up to the companies to think about that. Nintendo wants you to use their service for their stuff. That is the sole reason Sony created the share button for the PS4. Not to make life easier for you, but to control where you upload your let's plays. Or do you think Sony will pay you for uploading something to their station?
> There are of course other things that could be done but for now we have to live with the fact that other companies WILL follow suit. Nintendo was the first to do so and will not be the last so get ready for this discussion to go on.


 
First off, I presume that most decent LPers will be relying on capture cards even when the PS4 comes out, it'd be insanely stupid for them to not. People who make gaming videos on Youtube to generate ad revenue aren't going to be needing the "Share" button since they post process, edit, and split all their videos anyway.

I doubt that MANY other companies will follow suit. There will be a few in the future, but Nintendo has yet to face the considerable backlash that will occur once the copyright claim becomes widespread on Youtube. To the best of my knowledge, the large majority of major gaming studios (especially those based in the US, which is pretty large now) absolutely love partnering with Youtube gamers. They send them free stuff, most of the time they allow them exclusive content, demos, and information that are, of course, under embargo, but that's besides the point. They already have a solid pre-existing relationship with them, and are familiar with the fact that they do this as a job.

Nintendo has never been one of the companies that understands how this works or has been heavily partnered by Youtube gamers. Those that are based or established around NA have a better grip on how to handle their image on a website as large as Youtube simply because they're more familiar with how the community would react to something like this. Nintendo doesn't really directly connect with this audience, unlike something like EA or Blizzard who love sending free stuff to gamers and holding press conferences to make sure that they're promoted like they're the shit.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that some will follow, but I doubt that that many NA based companies will try. I might be wrong, but I don't expect EA, Activision, Ubisoft, or wherever else to try. Maybe SEGA or something, but seriously, who LP's that many SEGA games on Youtube anyway? For now, I can't see any company trying to do this since they know they'll have to face severe backlash and they're more familiar with the community as a whole.

And regarding laws: no one who comments on the internet is really in a position to figure this out I think. None of us are really copyright lawyers, and digital media is a really difficult and almost unexplored concept in written law. It's hard to decipher whether or not this is wrong in its legality. What most CAN argue, however, is that this is just a fucking bad thing in every way. Sometimes, an issue has to go past the law. It's not wrong for Nintendo to acknowledge that this is their content, because it's debatable, but it's just a plain bad idea to go after it on Youtube because that just fucks everything up.


----------



## Arras (May 20, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Update: Nintendo will not remove videos of LPs
> 
> "As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database. For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property."
> 
> http://www.gamefront.com/nintendo-flexing-copyright-clout-on-youtube-lets-play-channels/


That quote is, word for word, in the OP, and I'm pretty sure it has been there since the start of this thread...


----------



## Tigran (May 20, 2013)

So... According to you guys... I should be able to take a let's play video.... add my own commentary... daraw a few doodles on it...and make money off it.


Wonder how long before those LPers start to get pissed...


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 20, 2013)

Tigran said:


> So... According to you guys... I should be able to put a lot if time, effort, and money into a let's play video.... add my own commentary... draw a few doodles on it... Give the company free advertising... and make a small amount of ad revenue off it.


Fix'd


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2013)

Arras said:


> That quote is, word for word, in the OP, and I'm pretty sure it has been there since the start of this thread...


 

Then where is the "removal" part coming from? Doesn't sound like Nintendo is removing videos from that statement.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 20, 2013)

Yeah if you think a LP is easy (a good LP at least) then you're really wrong.

It's not a "freeloading" job like everyone thinks. It's not easy money. First you have to invest in everything. Capture equipment, editing and graphics software, a computer that can handle all this, etc. You need to make sure it's interesting, and that's not always easy. Make sure your commentary is good, that it's constantly engaging. It's easy to play a video game but to play them constantly and constantly talk over them? That's really tough. Hell watch Game Grumps and at times they'll comment on how hard it is to make constantly good commentary. Then you have to record all your footage, edit it down into chunks, secure good advertising so it gets seen, and then get advertising money.

If you really think "Well I play video games all day because I'm a sad fuck so this is just easy money!" then you're gonna have a terribly unsuccessful LP that'll probably grace the pages of retsupurae.


----------



## fojacko (May 20, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Yeah if you think a LP is easy (a good LP at least) then you're really wrong.
> 
> It's not a "freeloading" job like everyone thinks. It's not easy money. First you have to invest in everything. Capture equipment, editing and graphics software, a computer that can handle all this, etc. You need to make sure it's interesting, and that's not always easy. Make sure your commentary is good, that it's constantly engaging. It's easy to play a video game but to play them constantly and constantly talk over them? That's really tough. Hell watch Game Grumps and at times they'll comment on how hard it is to make constantly good commentary. Then you have to record all your footage, edit it down into chunks, secure good advertising so it gets seen, and then get advertising money.
> 
> If you really think "Well I play video games all day because I'm a sad fuck so this is just easy money!" then you're gonna have a terribly unsuccessful LP that'll probably grace the pages of retsupurae.


 
This. If you don't have good quality (video, audio and how interesting you are), people won't watch you. So you have to invest before you even start. When I click on a video and it has bad quality, I physically can't watch it all.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 20, 2013)

fojacko said:


> This. If you don't have good quality (video, audio and how interesting you are), people won't watch you. So you have to invest before you even start. When I click on a video and it has bad quality, I physically can't watch it all.


 
Physically was the best possible way to describe it. My face cringes until it implodes on itself.


----------



## fojacko (May 20, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Physically was the best possible way to describe it. My face cringes until it implodes on itself.


 
Yeah, I want to watch a video where I don't have to strain my eyes to see what's happening.


----------



## Rydian (May 20, 2013)

Tigran said:


> So... According to you guys... I should be able to take a let's play video.... add my own commentary... daraw a few doodles on it...and make money off it.
> 
> 
> Wonder how long before those LPers start to get pissed...


If you do it and it's not amazingly-popular, you'll only make like 50 cents a year.

I have 'earned' a grand total of $14.76 from adsense _since 2010_, which includes the text ad at the bottom of my site, and the monetization on youtube.  Google doesn't even send out money until it hits $100, so most people make _nothing_ off of youtube ads (one of the reasons I stopped doing it... also now they require phone verification and tax information, I don't have a cell and I'm not putting in my tax info and shit just to get $0 in return).

This will realistically affect a small amount of people, since it's NOT as simple as "record video game, get money"... but for those people, this is often *their job*.


----------



## SifJar (May 20, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Then where is the "removal" part coming from? Doesn't sound like Nintendo is removing videos from that statement.


Anyone talking about videos being removed either hasn't read the article/quote, is unable to understand the article (either due to a language barrier, or stupidity), or is possibly talking about the creators of the videos removing them themselves because they aren't getting the money from the advertising. Although most likely it's the first (haven't read the article/quote).


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 20, 2013)

Mind you the people who make a living off this are like Game Grumps who have over 180 million total video views and average about 100,000 views per video. Not counting their Egoraptor and JonTronShow channels which, while they don't make videos as much, average a couple million views each. 

Hell even PewDiePie, as much as a terrible piece of shit his channel is, rakes in so much dough from views.


----------



## Lestworth (May 20, 2013)

DSP, Wiiriketopray (and the 4 separate channels), Therunawayguys (and the 3 separate channels), Josh Jepson, The Creatures (and the 8 separate channels, that include Uberhaxornova), Raocow.


These are just channels off the top of my head, that's of course ignoring the others that have been listed already. All of them will be affected, some less then others. It all depends on how much Nintendo wants to be a dick about it.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (May 20, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> ...pretty dingle-dang stupid if you ask me. I get it that Nintendo _made_ the content that's being filmed, but what about all the editing, and in case of Game Grumps and the likes, the performance of the LP'er himself/herself? That's _his/her_ input, _he/she_ should get a cut for it.
> 
> Looks like Nintendo is really desperate not to post a loss this year despite the Wii U blunder.
> 
> _//MasterTrole2013_


Poor egoraptor......actually, because his "awesome series" videos have a lot of swearing/cursing, are they _actually_ associate their family-friendly, censored games with Ash f***ing Brock's girl???


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2013)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> Poor egoraptor......actually, because his "awesome series" videos have a lot of swearing/cursing, are they _actually_ associate their family-friendly, censored games with Ash f***ing Brock's girl???


That one was pretty hilarious, thanks for reminding me.


----------



## DiscostewSM (May 20, 2013)

People say it is their commentary and editing that they make money off of, and I can understand that, but they all revolve around footage from games that someone else made. Without that footage, they wouldn't even have LP videos to begin with. So, if they believe it isn't the footage that makes the videos, then don't use the footage. No more LP videos from this? Well, then the commentary and editing weren't the money-makers people claim them to be.


----------



## Arras (May 20, 2013)

DiscostewSM said:


> People say it is their commentary and editing that they make money off of, and I can understand that, but they all revolve around footage from games that someone else made. Without that footage, they wouldn't even have LP videos to begin with. So, if they believe it isn't the footage that makes the videos, then don't use the footage. No more LP videos from this? Well, then the commentary and editing weren't the money-makers people claim them to be.


Commentary without something to comment on would be kind of pointless though...


----------



## DiscostewSM (May 20, 2013)

Arras said:


> Commentary without something to comment on would be kind of pointless though...


True, but isn't the footage considered under copyright? If so, then it breaks point #3 of Fair use under Youtube, which is...


> http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html
> 
> *3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole*
> Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.


The footage basically spans most of the video, if not entirely, and because the commentary/editing would be nothing without the footage, the footage is the "heart" of the work.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2013)

DiscostewSM said:


> True, but isn't the footage considered under copyright? If so, then it breaks point #3 of Fair use under Youtube, which is...
> 
> The footage basically spans most of the video, if not entirely, and because the commentary/editing would be nothing without the footage, the footage is the "heart" of the work.


 
And yet, Nintendo stated that using their IP isn't illegal for LPs/recordings, if that statement is to be believed.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 20, 2013)

DiscostewSM said:


> People say it is their commentary and editing that they make money off of, and I can understand that, but they all revolve around footage from games that someone else made. Without that footage, they wouldn't even have LP videos to begin with. So, if they believe it isn't the footage that makes the videos, then don't use the footage. No more LP videos from this? Well, then the commentary and editing weren't the money-makers people claim them to be.


You could say the exact same thing in reverse. I certainly wouldn't watch the Game Grumps if it was just gameplay, and no commentary. However, I just might listen to their commentary on other subjects, because it's the commentary that really makes it for me more than the gameplay. But to each their own.

Point is though, both work in tandem. Both the gameplay and the commentary really make the best LPs, and it's stupid to argue either way and say "the gameplay is more important than the commentary, thus all the revenue should go toward the copyright owners. (Or vice versa)"


----------



## Hielkenator (May 21, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> But they're taking the revenue from videos with Nintendo content away from the video's creator. So for people who make a living off Youtube doing, say, Let's Plays, lose the money from their Nintendo videos if Nintendo cracks down on them.
> 
> Plus Nintendo also gets the option to control distribution of the video. They can set up when ads appear in the video, make it unavailable in certain countries, or block it completely.
> 
> It's very bad if Nintendo REALLY cracks down on this more than they already have.


If that is the case, this is bad news indeed!
On the same page as you are!


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (May 22, 2013)

If the footage is of a Nintendo game, it's their property and can do whatever they want with it.

Also, this:



> _Please note: you may not be able to monetize videos which use any of the following without the explicit permission of the person who created or produced all material:_





> _Music (including cover songs, lyrics, and background music)_
> _Graphics and pictures (including photographs and artwork)_
> _Movie or TV visuals_
> _Video game or software visuals. Click herefor details._
> _Live performances (including concerts, sporting events, and shows)_


If you enable monetization for any LP videos, it's either illegal (as you're profiting from content that is not your own), or you have to have a partnership, which means Nintendo is entitled to a portion of your money anyway.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 22, 2013)

mariofanatic64 said:


> If you enable monetization for any LP videos, it's either illegal (as you're profiting from content that is not your own), or you have to have a partnership, which means Nintendo is entitled to a portion of your money anyway.


Key word: "Portion". That is, the "portion" that belongs to them (the actual game being used), not YOUR gameplay, or YOUR commentary, or whatever else that YOU personally did to that video.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 22, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Key word: "Portion". That is, the "portion" that belongs to them (the actual game being used), not YOUR gameplay, or YOUR commentary, or whatever else that YOU personally did to that video.


Key word partnership -- if you have an existing agreement to share profits from the reuse of another's IP then carry on with your deal, if you commercially infringe upon the IP of another, including in derived works, most courts tend to level fines in the order of your total profits for the venture (and maybe just a bit more as recompense), stop you from carrying on with the venture (though there is some leeway and always the option of an out of court settlement) and the work will either become a nonwork or default back to the people with IP that was infringed upon.


----------



## Hells Malice (May 22, 2013)

I think someone mentioned TB's take on this earlier in the thread. He's quite spot on as far as I can tell.

A major thing about this is that you're essentially nipping a few dollars from people who need it more than you, and in doing so are destroying huge portions of free advertising.
The amount of games I've bought because I'll check out an LP (or one of TB's first impressions) is astounding. The only thing trailers end up doing is driving me nuts and turning me away. I quite prefer watching "real" people play the real, raw game. It's a lot easier to commit to a purchase like that.

I mean damn the Wii U isn't hurting them_ this_ badly.

As has been said, hopefully Nintendo will realize their blunder and stop before they really actually do damage to their revenue.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 22, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Key word partnership -- if you have an existing agreement to share profits from the reuse of another's IP then carry on with your deal, if you commercially infringe upon the IP of another, including in derived works, most courts tend to level fines in the order of your total profits for the venture (and maybe just a bit more as recompense), stop you from carrying on with the venture (though there is some leeway and always the option of an out of court settlement) and the work will either become a nonwork or default back to the people with IP that was infringed upon.


So what you're basically saying is that it's OK for large corporations to profit off the work for individual YouTube channels, but not OK for individual YouTube channels to profit partially off games made by a large corporation?

Right.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 22, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> So what you're basically saying is that it's OK for large corporations to profit off the work for individual YouTube channels, but not OK for individual YouTube channels to profit partially off games made by a large corporation?
> 
> Right.



I am saying it is OK or at least solid under the law for rights holders to an IP to profit off that IP and control its use as far as the law allows. In this case if it means that large corporations create some IP and want to control its use as far as legal protections allow then they are quite free to do so.


----------



## gamefan5 (May 22, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Precisely. And the ones who make good LPs are generally going to be the ones that get popular, and hence make the LPer enough money to make that a source of income.
> 
> By the way, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the GameGrumps in all this. They're the only LP channel that my girlfriend and I watch religiously (not to mention the only "TV show" that I watch, period), and I think they're a perfect example. Not only are they downright hilarious to the point that people are animating and remixing their funniest moments (yes, really), but they actually have some pretty interesting, semi-serious discussions and debates about what really makes a game, etc. Is it mostly just stupid humor? Yeah, but it's made endearing by the fact that Jon and Arin are naturally really funny people, and the show is "them being themselves."
> 
> I highly doubt the majority of GameGrumps viewers watch the show for "free gameplay footage so I don't have to play the game," as much as they watch it for the commentary, and so many people have been introduced to more obscure games because of them. Heck, they even got me to buy Sonic '06 for Christ's sake, something that I would never do or enjoy (almost done with my playthrough, btw) if it weren't for the Grumps' humorous viewpoint on the whole situation. It's also one of their most popular LPs on the channel, which I highly doubt would be the case if it was just any other old LP of Sonic '06.


Gamegrumps you say? Looks like I have got something to watch. XD


----------



## RodrigoDavy (May 22, 2013)

People here need to be more patient, we don't know yet how this Nintendo measure will actually affect youtube uploaders, yet people are already bashing against this attitude...
Things might only slightly change or not change at all.

Anyway, I consider to be stupid someone who thinks that they can rely exclusively on video uploading for a living. We don't even know if youtube will still be online 5 years from now. What do they expect? Job security? Shame on them for not worrying about what content they were using on their videos...


----------



## Rydian (May 22, 2013)

RodrigoDavy said:


> People here need to be more patient, we don't know yet how this Nintendo measure will actually affect youtube uploaders, yet people are already bashing against this attitude...
> Things might only slightly change or not change at all.


The OP actually mentions somebody who already had monetization redirected on his videos before this thread was even made...

This is not a "Nintendo has taken this stance and might do this with this results", this is "suddenly Nintendo started doing this and it has already had these results".



RodrigoDavy said:


> Anyway, I consider to be stupid someone who thinks that they can rely exclusively on video uploading for a living. We don't even know if youtube will still be online 5 years from now. What do they expect? Job security?


I've sanded tables at an ice cream factory for two weeks (just until they were all refinished), washed dishes in the back of a restaurant for a few months on and off (I was _on call as an extra_), and did two semesters of paid work study at my college.

None of those were anything you'd call "job security", but that doesn't mean they weren't legal jobs* or that I didn't do any work or wouldn't want them to continue once they stopped.

* - Adsense is legal payment, I mentioned earlier they need to confirm your home address, tax information, etc.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (May 22, 2013)

Rydian said:


> I've sanded tables at an ice cream factory for two weeks (just until they were all refinished), washed dishes in the back of a restaurant for a few months on and off (I was _on call as an extra_), and did two semesters of paid work study at my college.
> 
> None of those were anything you'd call "job security", but that doesn't mean they weren't legal jobs* or that I didn't do any work or wouldn't want them to continue once they stopped.
> 
> * - Adsense is legal payment, I mentioned earlier they need to confirm your home address, tax information, etc.


But you did know they were temporary jobs and have moved on, so I don't think you're stupid. I would think you're stupid if you wanted to live off washing dishes for your entire life


----------



## Rydian (May 22, 2013)

If somebody finds a job _they enjoy_, don't let your jealousy spoil your morals.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (May 22, 2013)

Rydian said:


> If somebody finds a job _they enjoy_, don't let your jealousy spoil your morals.


Not that I'm jealous, but don't tell me you didn't know that what happened wasn't previsible. I don't think LPers are lazy or anything, I just think they were aware of the risk and I sincerely don't think Nintendo did anything wrong. Doesn't mean I don't like what they do though, just that they didn't try to avoid it either


----------



## Rydian (May 22, 2013)

RodrigoDavy said:


> Not that I'm jealous, but don't tell me you didn't know that what happened wasn't previsible. I don't think LPers are lazy or anything, I just think they were aware of the risk and I sincerely don't think Nintendo did anything wrong. Doesn't mean I don't like what they do though, just that they didn't try to avoid it either


Lots of them do (did before), and are (are doing after the news), by not playing Nintendo games.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 22, 2013)

RodrigoDavy said:


> People here need to be more patient, we don't know yet how this Nintendo measure will actually affect youtube uploaders, yet people are already bashing against this attitude...
> Things might only slightly change or not change at all.
> 
> Anyway, I consider to be stupid someone who thinks that they can rely exclusively on video uploading for a living. We don't even know if youtube will still be online 5 years from now. What do they expect? Job security? Shame on them for not worrying about what content they were using on their videos...


 


RodrigoDavy said:


> Not that I'm jealous, but don't tell me you didn't know that what happened wasn't previsible. I don't think LPers are lazy or anything, I just think they were aware of the risk and I sincerely don't think Nintendo did anything wrong. Doesn't mean I don't like what they do though, just that they didn't try to avoid it either


 
Yeah, no. There are people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars through this and expand this kind of work into professional voice acting, game promotion, etc. Do you seriously think that the economy anywhere is stable enough that you'd want these people who make a living out of this to quit and join the fucking job market? No. Just no. I can't stress this enough: what they do is way more than just uploading videos. They entertain. They work hard. They don't just fucking record using a phone. They actually do something that makes people want to watch them. I don't think anyone who cani see this would call anyone as famous as PewDiePie or as knowledgeable as TotalBiscuit stupid for making a living out of doing this. I actually find TotalBiscuit and several other YT gamers more respectable than the gaming publications the majority of the time. The people who are successful through this have, the majority of the time, become immersed enough in the gaming industry to branch out in other parts of it.

We already know pretty much how this will affect them. They will have less motivation to make Nintendo videos. This is pretty much a terribly obvious given. It's not a secret that this will almost definitely be a bad thing. Even people who think that what Nintendo is doing is fair acknowledge that there will be considerable repercussions to just about every party involved. They're using automatic detection, so it's not like Nintendo's hand picking this shit out. The automated system's going to pick out whatever shit they see.

If you don't think Nintendo's doing anything wrong, then look at the backlash. Think this through for a second. Even if you don't think the backlash was fair, if they didn't do this, they wouldn't have gotten the backlash. They're fucking biting their own asses here. If their PR team was reasonable, they would've known that the gaming community wouldn't react well. *So why even do it? *They clearly did something wrong, since they're getting hurt too.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 22, 2013)

KingdomBlade said:


> If you don't think Nintendo's doing anything wrong, then look at the backlash. Think this through for a second. Even if you don't think the backlash was fair, if they didn't do this, they wouldn't have gotten the backlash. They're fucking biting their own asses here. If their PR team was reasonable, they would've known that the gaming community wouldn't react well. *So why even do it? *They clearly did something wrong, since they're getting hurt too.



I can certainly entertain the thought that it might have been a net positive for Nintendo to do nothing or be less restrictive, however this is the internet and worse it is youtube so backlashes about almost anything can be expected (left 4 dead 2 being too soon probably being my favourite). However your argument risks becoming circular logic and that is seldom that useful a position to argue from.
As for why
IP rights allow them to and everybody loves a bit of money for "nothing" or to spin it another way losing money you are legally entitled to is not something many turn up.
They might have wanted to control the perception of their IP (already happens an awful lot by various other forms).
They might have wanted to force people to deal with them in a more direct manner.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 22, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> I am saying it is OK or at least solid under the law for rights holders to an IP to profit off that IP and control its use as far as the law allows. In this case if it means that large corporations create some IP and want to control its use as far as legal protections allow then they are quite free to do so.


Well of course it's legal (as I said before). But "legal/lawful" doesn't always equal "right/ok" unfortunately.



gamefan5 said:


> Gamegrumps you say? Looks like I have got something to watch. XD


I strongly recommend their playthroughs of Goof Troop, Kirby Superstar, and Sonic 06.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 22, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Well of course it's legal (as I said before). But "legal/lawful" doesn't always equal "right/ok" unfortunately.



There seems to be a weird parallelism going on in this discussion between legal and all sorts of ethical positions.

That said fair enough, what then makes it OK for the let's play types to take the work of the IP holders and use it without license to do so?


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 22, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> There seems to be a weird parallelism going on in this discussion between legal and all sorts of ethical positions.
> 
> That said fair enough, what then makes it OK for the let's play types to take the work of the IP holders and use it without license to do so?


 
Found out something a bit interesting.

When an LPer or anyone who makes gaming videos on Youtube would like to monetize his/her videos, under traditional rules, they wouldn't be allowed to do so. Youtube would eventually stop your account from monetizing the videos and begin deleting videos. HOWEVER, the majority of LPers and Youtube gamers who monetize gaming videos of games that are distributed by large companies (EA, Microsoft, Activision) are signed to networks and partnerships that are associated with the publishers which give them the permission to monetize their content as part of a sort of co-promotional concept. This means that these companies willfully allow gamers to publish their content without restriction (other than embargo) and make money off of it, so no, the people that are major LPers on Youtube aren't hobos that mooch off people's games. The companies allow their content to be shared, so this basically kills the argument that they're insensitive copyright thieves.

I can only presume that Nintendo is one of these companies that gamers are partnered with (considering their past relationship with a few LPers) or Youtube would've removed the videos a long time ago. However, their new copyright claim includes all videos, which makes it even much more of a sting to those that make money creating videos for them, basically.


----------



## Rydian (May 22, 2013)

So it's just confirmation that Nintendo did a 180 the moment they heard money was involved?


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 22, 2013)

Rydian said:


> So it's just confirmation that Nintendo did a 180 the moment they heard money was involved?


I still think (and hope) they had a different reason, like content control or planning to release their own video network or something. It'd be really depressing if they went through all this trouble for what is essentially pocket change under a bus seat to them.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 22, 2013)

KingdomBlade said:


> FAST6191 said:
> 
> 
> > There seems to be a weird parallelism going on in this discussion between legal and all sorts of ethical positions.
> ...



Bolded parts would seem to negate your assessment/contention.

"these companies willfully allow gamers to publish their content without restriction (other than embargo)"
I have not read a contract between someone like machinima and one of the IP holders they deal with and doubt I will be able to find one (such things are often quite sensitive documents) but I would be stunned if time locked information sensitivity for given instances was the sole restriction upon the use of the content. Even if it is something like "and otherwise conforms to youtube standards" (which owing to their rather harsh stance on a lot of things is not inconsiderable) it counts, that said they would probably fire a lawyer that wrote a document like that rather than spelling it out.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 22, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Bolded parts would seem to negate your assessment/contention.
> 
> "these companies willfully allow gamers to publish their content without restriction (other than embargo)"
> I have not read a contract between someone like machinima and one of the IP holders they deal with and doubt I will be able to find one (such things are often quite sensitive documents) but I would be stunned if time locked information sensitivity for given instances was the sole restriction upon the use of the content. Even if it is something like "and otherwise conforms to youtube standards" (which owing to their rather harsh stance on a lot of things is not inconsiderable) it counts, that said they would probably fire a lawyer that wrote a document like that rather than spelling it out.


Well, to be totally honest, what I wrote was sort of an exaggeration. I don't exactly write like some sort of word for word lawyer, since I'm 16 and I'm fairly unfamiliar with what you'd call "lawyer talk" and I write in a fairly loose manner and without thinking that much through.

There are probably more restrictions to be found. However, I'm fairly positive that this does ensure that they DO have permission to publish content with video game footage in it, and are allowed some form of liberty with regard to which way they present and release it, which is basically my bottom line, and they do not just publish content without any permission.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 22, 2013)

KingdomBlade said:


> they do not just publish content without any permission.



They is not everybody though and that would seem to be the issue at hand.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 22, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> They is not everybody though and that would seem to be the issue at hand.


As I said, I'm talking strictly about those monetized on Youtube. Those monetized on Youtube are REQUIRED to have permission or they will immediately be revoked of their ability to do so. I'm familiar with a gamer who failed to join a network at the beginning of his Youtube career and tried to monetize his account, and he was banned from monetizing due to having video game footage of Dead Space, published by EA. He made a new account and joined a network before being monetized, and he was able to continue his LP's while being monetized.

So basically, everybody who monetizes videos of games that are published by large companies (this does not count games such as Minecraft, which the developers are fine about videos being made of it) is likely either partnered, or about to be banned from monetizing.


----------



## jacksprat1990 (May 22, 2013)

gamefan5 said:


> Gamegrumps you say? Looks like I have got something to watch. XD



If you like listening to annoying wankers, the GameGrumps will certainly fit that category.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 22, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> That said fair enough, what then makes it OK for the let's play types to take the work of the IP holders and use it without license to do so?


It isn't. I never said it was. I'm just saying that it's just as unfair for Nintendo to take ALL their monetization as a result. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That would be like if a thief robbed you of $100, and in turn, you went a robbed him back of not only the $100 he stole from you, but all the money that actually belonged to him as well.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 22, 2013)

In that case KingdomBlade we might well be talking about different groups/subgroups of people.



xwatchmanx said:


> It isn't. I never said it was. I'm just saying that it's just as unfair for Nintendo to take ALL their monetization as a result. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> That would be like if a thief robbed you of $100, and in turn, you went a robbed him back of not only the $100 he stole from you, but all the money that actually belonged to him as well.



Traditionally if you infringe upon an IP somewhere you can expect to lose out in a fairly big way. Given most let's plays and such seem to be focused solely upon a single game or possibly a franchise the game (and so the IP in question) would represent a fundamental component of the resulting work (a let's play without game footage is quite far from a complete standalone work and such like) it would not be a new precedent for the entire profit for the venture to be forfeit.

Your analogy is not great either as the only recompense I can have is that which is granted by the courts or an agreement made to be or able to be enforced by one. On the other hand with Nintendo and Google largely acting as (though I am curious about google's terms of service when it comes to this -- I would not be surprised to see that by joining you waive certain rights to contend decisions like this, whether that then infringes upon more basic rights is a whole other hornets nest) judge, jury and executioner that analogy might be more apt than it appears at face value.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 22, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> In that case KingdomBlade we might well be talking about different groups/subgroups of people.


 
Then which group were you referring to?


----------



## Lestworth (May 22, 2013)

I believe I read a law on some issue where you have the right get full compensation on items that are owed to you, given the party in question can pay that off within 5yrs. If you go past this said time, then your rights to that money you are owed, is thrown out of the window.

In all honesty, if Nintendo wanted to destroy the job market, they would of done what they have done when they realized that videos were being created off their video games on youtube. The real question is why has Nintendo taken this long to "Act" on this, despite the general belief of it being legal (with a strong legal backing), given the gray area Fair-Use Law that was threatened, and upheld a few years ago.

Nintendo had to of known that such a backlash would occur, they don't make BILLIONS a year for nothing. So why draw so much negative publicity from the online community? It's very stupid. Don't feed me that horse crap that any publicity is good publicity. If Nintendo wanted to crack down on this when youtube was getting popular they would of done it then.

"o but they are trying to protect their copyrights!" Take it to the courts before you start to actually take action on it. They are attempting to force these LP'ers to take it to the court, waste their money, and inevitable reach a settlement with youtube on this subject. Its just a backdoor way of getting to the goal.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 22, 2013)

The issue at hand/breakdown of the various lines of thought underpinning thing as it stands
Video footage of gameplay can be considered a use of the intellectual property (in this case most likely copyright) even if gameplay and video thereof are fundamentally different mediums (nothing new -- screengrabs are still covered, I can not make an action figure of a film/tv show/cartoon*, a game of it, I can purport to represent it somehow...).
In the case of let's play (and the possibly related subject of fan works) it does not fall into the traditional exemptions to copyright (three big ones in criticism/review, satire and education, though they are not the total umbrella for fair use they are the the overwhelming majority of it and feature/TV show amounts of footage are almost certainly not otherwise covered). I am not sure it would even be an overly suitable candidate for a new exemption either, there may be cases where a let's play amounts to one, two or even all three exemptions but that would be an interesting work.
Even if substantial extra work has been done on top of it (sampling, the fact you have to pay for music you add to your film even if it is an order of magnitude or two longer than the music, 3:30 though the whole show is great) it still counts.
Seemingly with the rise of easier monetisation Nintendo (maybe after being prompted by google) has decided to go against the unspoken traditional industry agreement that footage and such like is largely fair game. There are various reasons they could have done this with two of the big ones being "money is nice" and "unlicensed use of our IP is damaging our game's/brand image" but that is all largely irrelevant.
Those that willingly, wittingly or unwittingly could be a case for sympathy or not but is somewhat irrelevant, used the IP without license to do so are now finding themselves stung. It could be far worse but that is also largely irrelevant, however some seem to have taken the position that it is an unbidden tragedy so I was mainly arguing from the "this is what the law says" perspective. Part of that is if you infringe upon a work as a key component of your work you might well lose the lot.

IP is a hard game and if you go up against the proverbial half tonne gorilla with a machine gun you are likely to lose. There do even seem to be relatively easy ins (if IP holders have some kind of blanket agreement with the likes of machinima and co to almost arbitrarily sub-license the content to others that is insanely lenient compared to other forms of IP -- you are a kind of partner) though I would equally unsurprised to see Nintendo refuse to entertain the notion of a license if you were not an affiliate of a halfway known/big player (lawyer time is valuable time after all).

*this may be trademarks depending upon what goes.

It seems somewhat irrelevant to say (indeed I often opt to not include my personal feelings on the matter in such situations, partially as it feels unnecessary/counterproductive and partially because quite a few seem to be infuriated by my doing it -- typically those that assume the only camps are for or against) but I am not necessarily opposed to let's play type things; could possibly agree at some level Nintendo are shooting themselves in the foot, Nintendo are throwing away an advantage or Nintendo are setting a bad precedent; that monetisation of such activities represents a new and interesting activity (though the usual warning that internet money is by no means soft long term money applies); and that let's play making, whether through incompetence or through being a substantial work, can take a lot of work to do well.


----------



## Lestworth (May 22, 2013)

It is nearly impossible to view this subject, and not report with personal feeling attached to everything you say. The only time that is possible is when a written law is created, and even then that favors a side. We could talk law (as it has been for the past 10-14 pages) all day long, the fact is, its a gray area. Nintendo has challenged that gray area now. They opened themselves to this abuse that comes with them challenging this. The company is already being viewed as a second fiddle, so question becomes why.

In all reality, Nintendo probably was the only company that could get away with this, with minimal backlash compared to if Sony, or Microsoft attempted this. Reason being the passionate fans of Nintendo, and the fanboyism fight of Sony v. Microsoft (with the occasional PC Elitist jumping in).


----------



## FAST6191 (May 22, 2013)

Lestworth said:


> the fact is, its a gray area



I do not see it -- Nintendo's actions seem to be legally righteous under google's TOS and general readings of IP law as it presently stands. There was something of a long standing unwritten agreement as far as most of the games industry was concerned but that probably counts for little here (copyright does not need to be defended like a trademark).

As for "Take it to the courts" most people try to avoid seeing the inside of a courtroom if they can and this goes double in many cases of contended IP.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 23, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> The issue at hand/breakdown of the various lines of thought underpinning thing as it stands
> Video footage of gameplay can be considered a use of the intellectual property (in this case most likely copyright) even if gameplay and video thereof are fundamentally different mediums (nothing new -- screengrabs are still covered, I can not make an action figure of a film/tv show/cartoon*, a game of it, I can purport to represent it somehow...).
> In the case of let's play (and the possibly related subject of fan works) it does not fall into the traditional exemptions to copyright (three big ones in criticism/review, satire and education, though they are not the total umbrella for fair use they are the the overwhelming majority of it and feature/TV show amounts of footage are almost certainly not otherwise covered). I am not sure it would even be an overly suitable candidate for a new exemption either, there may be cases where a let's play amounts to one, two or even all three exemptions but that would be an interesting work.
> Even if substantial extra work has been done on top of it (sampling, the fact you have to pay for music you add to your film even if it is an order of magnitude or two longer than the music, 3:30 though the whole show is great) it still counts.
> ...


To be honest, not that many people actually put the legality of this in question. I don't believe I've seen that many reasonable perspectives on the matter (including TotalBiscuit's) that questions the legality, since unless you're someone fundamentally experienced in something like this, it's doubtful you'd be able to give a good perspective on the matter. However, most of the backlash stems from the fact that what they're doing is a case of very poor judgement, which it absolutely is.

By network, I'm referring to things such as The Game Station, which is BTW probably the largest gaming network on Youtube. The members become affiliated with gaming companies and essentially become "part of the press" in a way, which gives them the ability to monetize stuff like this. However, I agree that it's fairly easy for Nintendo to bypass something like this.

I doubt anyone would actually want to take this to court. Most Youtubers that are against this simply acknowledge that what Nintendo is doing is, for all intents and purpose, damaging to the gaming industry as a whole, but they also acknowledge that Nintendo has a lot of grounds to the case. I don't think legality was ever the real problem here. If what they were doing didn't damage anyone, it wouldn't even be a problem.


----------



## Rydian (May 26, 2013)

http://letsplaylist.wikia.com/wiki/"Let's_Play"-friendly_developers_Wiki#Master_List
A list people have been compiling of LP-friendly publishers/developers.


----------

