ROM Hack Nintendo closing Rom hacking and speedrunning channels.

[piratesephiroth]

And no one seemed to care

my exact opinion on romhacking/speedrunning youtube channels

Really?

Spoiler

 

[TeamScriptKiddies]

This is total BS. What are you doing Nintendo??? Seriously? First of all in many countries, reverse engineering of games for certain purposes is entirely legal regardless of what the EULA says. Federal/National law trumps that in many countries. Violating a EULA generally boils down to you forfeiting any sort of technical support or warranty from the manufacturer (at least here in the states), but as long as what you do is up to par with the law, it doesn't matter. So you forfeit your warranty big woop, that's a personal choice people make...

Second of all, they only want videos made of certain games, and others are blacklisted? Sorry but the Fair Use Clause states otherwise (http://copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html). If its done for critique or review purposes Nintendo has no right having the content removed or getting people banned.

If someone is playing a "hacked rom" in their youtube video, how does the viewer know if the person in the video owns the original game or not, and chose to apply patches to a backup copy of their own game which is completely legal under section 117 of US Copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117), not to mention there are various exemptions for patching your own stuff and what not. What Nintendo is doing here is clearly violating the rights of others by making up arbitrary copyright laws as they go along.....

 

[FAST6191]

This is total BS. What are you doing Nintendo??? Seriously? First of all in many countries, reverse engineering of games for certain purposes is entirely legal regardless of what the EULA says. Federal/National law trumps that in many countries. Violating a EULA generally boils down to you forfeiting any sort of technical support or warranty from the manufacturer (at least here in the states), but as long as what you do is up to par with the law, it doesn't matter. So you forfeit your warranty big woop, that's a personal choice people make...

Second of all, they only want videos made of certain games, and others are blacklisted? Sorry but the Fair Use Clause states otherwise (http://copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html). If its done for critique or review purposes Nintendo has no right having the content removed or getting people banned.

If someone is playing a "hacked rom" in their youtube video, how does the viewer know if the person in the video owns the original game or not, and chose to apply patches to a backup copy of their own game which is completely legal under section 117 of US Copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117), not to mention there are various exemptions for patching your own stuff and what not. What Nintendo is doing here is clearly violating the rights of others by making up arbitrary copyright laws as they go along.....

Certain uses tends to be for things like "interoperability", for fun and profit is rather more murky. On EULAs yeah that is usually a consequence and yeah various laws will likely end up voiding aspects of most contracts/licensing agreements -- it is the nature of both parties involved to get the most favourable to them and I can not recall the last time I sat at a table across from Nintendo.

Critiques and reviews are able to bypass said agreements, I would agree entirely and have actually sort of questioned the various agreements I have seen for not acknowledging that. It is by no means required to mention it but it is still a bit of a dick move. Anyway that is besides the point as a hacked game, speedrun or let's play is not inherently a review/critique, parody, article of research such that it is excluded, teaching material or one of the others (the whole being played in full thing being rather damaging for said "other" things).

A hacked ROM might well be legal under copyright, though the DMCA might well say something about bypassing various protections methods, but we will have to save that for another day. Now trademark law is a different beast and the one I imagine they would argue in court for some of this. A hacked game is inherently a different game; it might be a better game and the change might be minor but it is still a different one. This sort of thing then leads to two aspects of trademark law, possibly three if they wanted to get really petty
1) False representation of a product. As you are no longer playing [game] but instead something else entirely then calling your video [something [game] run] would be a false thing.
2) Possibly cause confusion among members of the general public. People buy reproductions of hacked games thinking they are the real thing all the time, the average youtube clicker you can probably hold in even less esteem.

The possibility of 3) is a consequence of 1) really and you would then technically be playing a game using copyrighted and trademarked assets. For a video though that would be pretty petty from where I sit.

I reckon MS' rules I linked elsewhere have a more clear cut demonstration of use of trademark law but reading Nintendo's creator program it is not without it either.

 

[gamesquest1]

in other words..... nintendo had a few shitty years and are clutching at revenue streams, think of it like the mafia, mafia get 50% of the profits a week from shop A, shop B isn't, so their solution is either
A) demand 50% of the profits a week from shop B
B) force shop B to close so shop A gets more traffic and thus they get more money

completely ignoring the fact that shop A and B had completely different "customers" and shop B's customers have zero interest in watching sucky sucky "lets plays" from a bunch of high screamy over reacting idiots who wet their pants over the announcement of a smash bros character

 

[TeamScriptKiddies]

Certain uses tends to be for things like "interoperability", for fun and profit is rather more murky. On EULAs yeah that is usually a consequence and yeah various laws will likely end up voiding aspects of most contracts/licensing agreements -- it is the nature of both parties involved to get the most favourable to them and I can not recall the last time I sat at a table across from Nintendo.

Critiques and reviews are able to bypass said agreements, I would agree entirely and have actually sort of questioned the various agreements I have seen for not acknowledging that. It is by no means required to mention it but it is still a bit of a dick move. Anyway that is besides the point as a hacked game, speedrun or let's play is not inherently a review/critique, parody, article of research such that it is excluded, teaching material or one of the others (the whole being played in full thing being rather damaging for said "other" things).

A hacked ROM might well be legal under copyright, though the DMCA might well say something about bypassing various protections methods, but we will have to save that for another day. Now trademark law is a different beast and the one I imagine they would argue in court for some of this. A hacked game is inherently a different game; it might be a better game and the change might be minor but it is still a different one. This sort of thing then leads to two aspects of trademark law, possibly three if they wanted to get really petty
1) False representation of a product. As you are no longer playing [game] but instead something else entirely then calling your video [something [game] run] would be a false thing.
2) Possibly cause confusion among members of the general public. People buy reproductions of hacked games thinking they are the real thing all the time, the average youtube clicker you can probably hold in even less esteem.

The possibility of 3) is a consequence of 1) really and you would then technically be playing a game using copyrighted and trademarked assets. For a video though that would be pretty petty from where I sit.

I reckon MS' rules I linked elsewhere have a more clear cut demonstration of use of trademark law but reading Nintendo's creator program it is not without it either.

People could argue back and forth all day about IP laws, but as long as people aren't encouraging piracy blatantly, this type of thing , imo is fair use and also subject to section 117. Not to mention video expression is also a form of speech, plus there are educational aspects of hacking videos for people interested in computer science or info security. As far as I'm concerned Nintendo can't touch you (if you're in the US), if you're banned fight it to the bitter end. I highly doubt they'll take any legal action against joe schmoe's just posting hacking/cheating videos, it wouldn't be in their best interest. They would lose money in legal fees in most cases, because suing the average joe will result in very little monetary gain for them. You can't take money/personal assets that don't exist....

 

[the_randomizer]

Yeah, well screw the DMCA, it's a convoluted and ill-contrived law that needs a serious rewrite to make things less vague when interpreted. I had to re-download a game because I couldn't recover a game I bought from Ubisoft's site before it was made available on Steam, so I used a patch with it that bypasses the DRM. Like with that, I don't see anything wrong with having these videos posted so long as people aren't making money off of ROM hacking videos, but the problem is, they are, and that's why they're getting taken down. That is, if I'm understanding this right.

 

[Vipera]

I can't wait to hear about the enraged "professional LPers" who will ride this till death because they don't give a crap about games but money.

As for everyone else yeah, dick move. Pls fix.

 

[Margen67]

I can't wait to hear about the enraged "professional LPers" who will ride this till death because they don't give a crap about games but money.

As for everyone else yeah, dick move. Pls fix.

but can how can i live without people screaming at spoopy games?1?! /s

 

[gamesquest1]

i just wish nintendo would focus on banning "lets play"ers, a few times i have gone to go have a look on youtube if a game is any good and been put off it by them, cant make it past about 30 seconds of the average "lets play"er and youtube is swamped with them, they just give people a bad representation of a game, if i was to trust what a lets play shows i would have to believe any and every game makes you brain damaged and have a epileptic fit

sorry to any one who wants to do lets plays who doesn't act like a 10 year old girl who just seen a puppy farm, but those "guys" ruined it for everyone

 

[Margen67]

i just wish nintendo would focus on banning "lets play"ers, a few times i have gone to go have a look on youtube if a game is any good and been put off it by them, cant make it past about 30 seconds of the average "lets play"er and youtube is swamped with them, they just give people a bad representation of a game, if i was to trust what a lets play shows i would have to believe any and every game makes you brain damaged and have a epileptic fit

sorry to any one who wants to do lets plays who doesn't act like a 10 year old girl who just seen a puppy farm, but those "guys" ruined it for everyone

My favorite sidebar cancer is Minecraft and FNAF let's plays

 

[Vipera]

i just wish nintendo would focus on banning "lets play"ers, a few times i have gone to go have a look on youtube if a game is any good and been put off it by them, cant make it past about 30 seconds of the average "lets play"er and youtube is swamped with them, they just give people a bad representation of a game, if i was to trust what a lets play shows i would have to believe any and every game makes you brain damaged and have a epileptic fit

sorry to any one who wants to do lets plays who doesn't act like a 10 year old girl who just seen a puppy farm, but those "guys" ruined it for everyone

You reminded me of something I experienced while playing a game not too long ago. I was stuck on a level and looked up on YouTube to see how I could pass it (not naming it so people won't call me newb). First page was all "LET'S PLAY THIS GAEM LOLZ I'M SO SILLY XDDD". I even clicked on the video with the less obnoxious title and it STILL had that stupid intro of the channel, the "presentation" of the "professional LPer", then he kept failing on the same fucking part of the level that I already passed. Then the video finishes without finishing the level. But not before some subscription, like and patreon whoring that lasted one fucking minute.

My God, whatever happened to people who uploaded gameplay vids just to show the fucking game? I hope they nuke all these pricks and leave the legit ones alone.

 

[gamesquest1]

You reminded me of something I experienced while playing a game not too long ago. I was stuck on a level and looked up on YouTube to see how I could pass it (not naming it so people won't call me newb). First page was all "LET'S PLAY THIS GAEM LOLZ I'M SO SILLY XDDD". I even clicked on the video with the less obnoxious title and it STILL had that stupid intro of the channel, the "presentation" of the "professional LPer", then he kept failing on the same fucking part of the level that I already passed. Then the video finishes without finishing the level. But not before some subscription, like and patreon whoring that lasted one fucking minute.

My God, whatever happened to people who uploaded gameplay vids just to show the fucking game? I hope they nuke all these pricks and leave the legit ones alone.

lets not forget the people whoring out their children on "lets play channels" i can only imagine their views are solely attributed to weirdos who want to watch a 4 year old crying because he "falledededed in the lavaaahhh 436 times"

pretty sure those "parents" dont pay their kids, and dont adhere to any laws about child exploitation forcing them to play games pretty much non stop to keep producing "content" for their channel

when i am stuck on something on a game its easier to just find a decent written guide, video's used to be good, but now finding a decent guide or walk-through is like digging for gold amongst all the complete and utter crap that is churned out by lets players

 

[Nirmonculus]

Wow, people are really losing their minds over this. XD

 

[Deleted User]

Welp, that's bullshit. I realised people are still making these videos (oftenly Pokemon Neo X&Y) recently and Nintendo hasn't taken those videos down even after weeks lol. Hopefully Nintendo doesn't take down my video of New Super Mario Bros. 2 custom level. If they even ban me off YouTube, I'd be fucking done with my Google Account and I'll move to Dailymotion instead.

 

[darklordrs]

digital games at the same price as retail

aaight, I was reading through this thread trying to be relevant and all but complaining about this makes no sense to me. why would the game be at a lower price digitally

 

[Ericzander]

aaight, I was reading through this thread trying to be relevant and all but complaining about this makes no sense to me. why would the game be at a lower price digitally

Overhead.

Nintendo sells a physical game to GameStop who then has to sell it to you: The money is split between Nintendo, the negotiators with GameStop, the truck drivers, GameStop, etc.

Nintendo sells a digital game directly to you: The money goes to Nintendo.

Lets say for a physical $60 game that $10 ends up in Nintendo's pockets. With a digital $60 game, $60 ends up in their pockets. So in this hypothetical situation couldn't Nintendo also just make the $60 game $30 digitally? They'd still be making 3x as much money.

Now... I always want physical releases and am dreading the inevitable day that gaming goes completely digital. But if it was cheaper then I might be more accepting of it. However, right now I'm sure the higher ups at Nintendo have taken basic college economics courses and know how to price products. Maybe the game market is inelastic and lowering the price of a $60 game down 20% (to $48) would only increase the demand by 10% which would make them less money overall. If the market is elastic (and Steam leads me to believe that's the case) then if lowering the price by 20% would increase demand by 30% they'd be making even more money. So it's all based on the circumstances on why they might want to lower the digital price of games.

 

[Clydefrosch]

aaight, I was reading through this thread trying to be relevant and all but complaining about this makes no sense to me. why would the game be at a lower price digitally

no packaging, no inlays and booklets, no shipping costs, no retailer margin.
digital distribution is so much cheaper than retail and they dont even adjust their online prices to retail prices either.
theres games i can buy for 10 bucks new that are still 40+ on eshop

 

[gamesquest1]

tbh most companies treat their customers like morons, "guys with us you can get less for more, thats right you will get less for more !!!! buy now!" i guess one advantage is it means our physical copies retain their price better than if nintendo just put them out on the eshop copies dirt cheap.....lets face it, once nintendo stop producing physical copies why don't they just drop the eshop price and destroy second hand sales when people could just buy it for $5 on eshop, lets face it nobody will buy a game for $50 on eshop (except for the diehard "please make me go digital, oh yeah, oh please i love digital, its the way forward, its so convenient and makes you feel warm inside"......guys ), when a second hand copy is like $10

 

[Jayro]

As long as you're not showing gameplay, ond only file modifications on the computer-side of things, without showing sprites and playing audio content, you should be okay.

 

[FAST6191]

As long as you're not showing gameplay, ond only file modifications on the computer-side of things, without showing sprites and playing audio content, you should be okay.

I know I said elsewhere I do not care for let's plays as a concept but I probably would watch a hand puppet recreation of a gameplay session scored with acappella versions of the song in question.