High odds of losing, and then being completely fucked.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jimquisition: Why It's Morally Okay To Pirate All Of Nintendo's Games (Feb. 20, 2017)
- Thread starter L~A
- Start date
High odds of losing, and then being completely fucked.
Inferno313
Banned
Fwiw, the USSR primarily used Red and White, or Red and Yellow, far as I'm aware. A quick google search on USSR propaganda doesn't turn up much Red and Black.
I'm also not sure if they used winged emblems, like the one Sterling's got behind him, to the same degree that the Nazis occasionally did.
LordRaptor
Member
"The Jimquisition" is a commercial entity.
"Nintendo" is a commercial entity.
What "not abiding by the rules" is Nintendo doing?
Are they using unlicensed music? Are they taking other people videos and putting them in adverts? Where are the copyright strikes or content ID takedowns against them?
They have an established licencing agreement for using their work, and enforce it via automated matching on Youtube, just like multiple other licence holders do.
If you don't want to work within licensing guidelines, you can use their work but not monetise it, you can ignore them completely, or you can go to a different video hosting site that does not provide that service for licence holders.
You don't get to just say "Fuck all that, I do what I want", come on now.
Like I say, if this was the other way round - if Nintendo were taking an individuals work and using it for commercial gain, and your stance is that that is not okay, why the double standard?
1) it doesn't matter, fan art isn't illegal if it isn't being used to make a profit
2) Nintendo characters are for people of all ages.
Nintendo does not get to determine what fair use is. The law exists, Nintendo does not have the right to change it.
What Nintendo can do, however, is bully people who have no time, money or desire to litigate petty bullshit.
Magikoopa24
Neo Member
Though it's good to mention that this is a relatively recent development- remember when they took down a bunch of Shining Force videos to promote the new game, even if said videos had no copyrighted material? Whatever pushed them to become better on all PR fronts needs to happen to Nintendo stat.
Aztechnology
Member
Chû Totoro;230664977 said:
Only Nintendo takes a borderline authoritarian approach to its content out of the group.
I say that very loosely.
Btw the point I overall I kind of got him saying, although he did a poor job of it. Is piracy and theft is wrong; however, if there's a game company where it would be the most morally justified. It would be against Nintendo because of their actions and disregard for users rights.
Weltall Zero
Member
Chû Totoro;230664977 said:
Because he receives more copyright claims from Nintendo than any other company, Konami included. As he very clearly states in the video, but feel free to turn the thread into a QA sesion for people that won't watch the very video it is about.
Zombie James
Banned
So your solution is for a YouTuber to take Nintendo to court to prove that existing fair use laws exist? Baring in mind the huge disparity between a YouTuber vs. large corporation with an army of lawyers, it would be much, much simpler if Nintendo would just stop their bullshit and follow the law.
Expect he isn't.
lyrick
Member
Nah, Nintendo would have everything to gain from squishing out what the courts may consider is not fair use. They wouldn't stall on a case like that, they would attack it hard and fast.
If you actually have a legal standing, use it, Proving fair use and claiming the theft of royalties for "original" content is a legal challenge.
When someone steals from you, you don't go out and attempt devalue something of theirs. That doesn't resolve any of the conflict or get you your money back.
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
In regards to fair use on Youtube...shouldn't just as much anger be leveraged at Youtube for just bending over backwards and allowing Nintendo to do what they like?
ClosingADoor
Member
Aren't the characters themselves underage, making it a bit more awkward for Nintendo to have that stuff floating around online?
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Ah, today is an even day, so we get a Nintendo or Ubisoft rant. Next week we can hear about the evils of Steam or Sony/MS again.
None of this matters. Nintendo doesn't want pictures of Peach fucking Daisy out there and they are fully in their right to do so.
None of this matters. Nintendo doesn't want pictures of Peach fucking Daisy out there and they are fully in their right to do so.
People need to make it to themselves clear that Jim is NOT saying pirating Nintendo'S games is ok. But he doesn't respect Nintendo enough to end his video on a serious note saying: "Of course I don't think it's okay to pirate their stuff."
He shits on Nintendo (and rightfully so, in these cases) but he doesn't advocate piracy.
He's using a clickbaity title is all.
He shits on Nintendo (and rightfully so, in these cases) but he doesn't advocate piracy.
He's using a clickbaity title is all.
franklyshankly
Member
I'm not trying to take a stance either way here, but I just wanted to clarify one facet of IP law.
"Fair Use" isn't fair use just because you claim it is. It is a specifically delineated and defined by statute (in the US), as interpreted in decades of federal case law. It is identified by a series of factors, and whether a specific use constitutes fair use is often a question of fact.
In short, you don't get to simply scream FAIR USE and immediately shut down another's rights as to their copyrighted work. Nothing prevents a copyright owner from taking action against an alleged infringer. Fair Use can be used as a defense to such action, but it is not automatic and it is not absolute.
"Fair Use" isn't fair use just because you claim it is. It is a specifically delineated and defined by statute (in the US), as interpreted in decades of federal case law. It is identified by a series of factors, and whether a specific use constitutes fair use is often a question of fact.
In short, you don't get to simply scream FAIR USE and immediately shut down another's rights as to their copyrighted work. Nothing prevents a copyright owner from taking action against an alleged infringer. Fair Use can be used as a defense to such action, but it is not automatic and it is not absolute.
Until this goes to court and someone actually defines what the hell Fair Use constitutes, we'll keep having this discussion.
Vincent Alexander
Member
A bit, yeah. I think YouTube's problem is they have to abide by copyright claims. Where they are at fault is how they've attempted to do so, through the shitty Content ID system.
The meltdowns have already begun.
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
Look that hot taek!
You don't feel that is wrong in some way though? You're selling them a product, and they're just walking away with a free copy. Those people do not appreciate the hard work you've done, they only care that it didn't cost them anything. I will never find that ok.
Weltall Zero
Member
That is literally what (Jim claims) is happening with both the copyright claims (which let Nintendo monetize the ads in content creator's videos) and their own program that withholds monetization video that they then may partially pass on to creators. As is (you may have heard it before) very detailedly stated in the video
meanspartan
Member
I don't know how many times I've bought Super Mario Bros.
To me, the same principle that lets me make a copy of a vhs tape (so long as I don't sell that copy), allows me to download ROMs of games I have purchased. However, that's about the only "piracy" I'd argue is morally defensible. Well, one of two. The other is games that don't exist on sale any more, often due to license issues. You can't by Aladdin or any number of other games for sale, so ROMs are not only necessary, they are imperative to preserve the history of the hobby in those cases, especially since the industry won't do it themselves.
To me, the same principle that lets me make a copy of a vhs tape (so long as I don't sell that copy), allows me to download ROMs of games I have purchased. However, that's about the only "piracy" I'd argue is morally defensible. Well, one of two. The other is games that don't exist on sale any more, often due to license issues. You can't by Aladdin or any number of other games for sale, so ROMs are not only necessary, they are imperative to preserve the history of the hobby in those cases, especially since the industry won't do it themselves.
Ah. If only money could be "copy and pasted"
Snowybreak
Member
Are you just not getting the core concept? Nintendo is actively monetizing ad-free videos for their own profit. They IP-ID the video, taking it down if it has ads, or slapping ads on the videos to pick up royalties from someone else's content that was abiding by standard fair-use.
They do not exist in the context of internet media and in so far there is no court study that would put any of the practices employed/used here as breaking any laws. Further, this all runs into reciprocity issues between nations on a platform that can and is used internationally. Fair Use does not exist in a sense where it has been 'broken' by Nintendo in this context.
You are blowing turbines worth of meaningless hot air with that "follow the law" nonsense. Its as if you think they can willy-nilly break the law but in reality there is no clearly defined law here to enforce or to break.
Jim's argument makes sense. Nintendo also has a history of lobbying and exerting market powers to circumvent copyright laws.
This was the case with the rental of video games in the 90s.
I think if Jim is using clips of games and citing them, he is following the law. And I don't believe there is anything morally wrong with Jim's content. His argument is that Nintendo doesn't respect copyright laws and completely disregards these laws in the battle for profits.
Jim is claiming that for Nintendo specifically, piracy is not a war of morality, but rather a weapon they can use to beat down others and protect their market position. A company founded on a King Kong ripoff and subsequent court defense from Universal is very aware of the value of owning and viciously protecting IP. Universal never owned King Kong and the IP became public domain.
I think Jim chose this video title to be provocative and I believe it worked. At the end of the video, he even says that it is not right, but he believes that pirating is essentially what Nintendo is doing when they try to monetize or shutdown his ad-free YouTube videos.
This was the case with the rental of video games in the 90s.
I think if Jim is using clips of games and citing them, he is following the law. And I don't believe there is anything morally wrong with Jim's content. His argument is that Nintendo doesn't respect copyright laws and completely disregards these laws in the battle for profits.
Jim is claiming that for Nintendo specifically, piracy is not a war of morality, but rather a weapon they can use to beat down others and protect their market position. A company founded on a King Kong ripoff and subsequent court defense from Universal is very aware of the value of owning and viciously protecting IP. Universal never owned King Kong and the IP became public domain.
I think Jim chose this video title to be provocative and I believe it worked. At the end of the video, he even says that it is not right, but he believes that pirating is essentially what Nintendo is doing when they try to monetize or shutdown his ad-free YouTube videos.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Fun game for the end of the thread: which user is clearly the most furious, just really straight up "You just attacked my family member!!" mad.
I guess I just find whatever peoples personal time limits on this stuff is as interesting. Giving things a customary few years until company just emphatically says "no plans" seems to be the "yes its time for that ROM then" moment. But some peoples faith is so total in the corporation that they dare not ever implicate themselves in such "crime".
I guess thats why Jim's video is pretty smart. It directly attacks the notion that Nintendo is "the good guy" corporation that absolutely does care about all the things it says it does. He's dragging them through the mud to reveal what they (unsurprisingly) are: a business out for itself that doesn't care about you the individual whatsoever.
I guess I just find whatever peoples personal time limits on this stuff is as interesting. Giving things a customary few years until company just emphatically says "no plans" seems to be the "yes its time for that ROM then" moment. But some peoples faith is so total in the corporation that they dare not ever implicate themselves in such "crime".
I guess thats why Jim's video is pretty smart. It directly attacks the notion that Nintendo is "the good guy" corporation that absolutely does care about all the things it says it does. He's dragging them through the mud to reveal what they (unsurprisingly) are: a business out for itself that doesn't care about you the individual whatsoever.
I don't know, I don't look at it, all I know is that the characters aren't real nor are they depicting real people. Cartoon character ages are arbitrary. I can draw someone who looks like a child and say they are a 1,000 year old dragon. What now?
They are in their right to be mad about they can't really do anything about it. I mean, sure, issue the notice. You can't stop everyone everywhere. It's the internet.
If you believe that Nintendo is illegally infringing on your ability to monetize your videos, then take them to court and get them to stop.
Worried about taking the risk yourself? I'm sure there are plenty of other content creators out there who have run into this issue. I know Angry Joe has talked about this a lot in the past, so that's two right there.
Or you could just make a video encouraging illegal activity. Youtube rants and angry tweets are an excellent way to make real change in the world. Why, just last night I called Donald Trump a butthole on twitter and I'm pretty sure he's going to resign.
Worried about taking the risk yourself? I'm sure there are plenty of other content creators out there who have run into this issue. I know Angry Joe has talked about this a lot in the past, so that's two right there.
Or you could just make a video encouraging illegal activity. Youtube rants and angry tweets are an excellent way to make real change in the world. Why, just last night I called Donald Trump a butthole on twitter and I'm pretty sure he's going to resign.
I'll feel totally justified downloading those scary ROMs if Nintendo tries to charge a fourth time for the exact same Virtual Console games (Wii, Wii U, 3DS, and now possibly Switch). Doubly so if they still think using PAL 50hz versions of games on a console that can't output 50hz is a good idea.
JonnyDBrit
Member
This is true. Indeed, there's something of a marked shift by a lot of companies to differing degrees the last few years, when not too long ago they were all pretty eagerly in on the copyright claim game.
Probably the most obvious factor is the rise of the Youtube Let's Player, both as an actual career but also as a means of exposure and easy PR by being friendly with them. I mean hell, Nintendo has somewhat realised this - look at folks like RogersBase or ProJared getting a special showcase and an interview respectively - but they still want much more control over the process than other companies do. They're seemingly, currently of the belief that unless they have specifically sanctioned you, you do not have permission to use their material for the purposes of review or commentary, which isn't how that works in US law, at least on paper.
Twenty7KVN
Member
Only a slight mention. This is about Nintendos shitty abuse of content i.d.
He interrupted what should be a straight faced message with more sarcasm and how he doesn't respect Nintendo enough to even say it.
I think the message he delivers is clear and I don't like it.
ClosingADoor
Member
I'm talking about the Nintendo characters, not the exact images people make of them. I think you can understand that Nintendo, a company who targets kids with their games, does not like to have 18+ material being made with their property, especially not if the characters in it are also looking like kids (for example Splatoon).
Then, Jim Sterling is gonna make a rant about that monkey bastards at Nintendo who are stealing his money from his video because he used some part of a trailer with various effects to cover his ass for using stuff without their permission.
Oh, the irony.
Insert "Angry Joe" or "Jim Sterling" rants about Nintendo and Youtube.
captain_skyhawk
Member
two wrongs don't make a right.
Right?
Right?
always crazy bacon
Banned
Piracy = immoral
Used games = moral
I'd like to see how you came to that conclusion. I'm not arguing piracy is not illegal but when you add immorality to that you're implying the opposite to the other case.
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
i actually despair that jim and colin are some of the most well funded gaming community commentators out there.
is this really the best, considerate, sober discussion about computer games we can offer?
is this really the best, considerate, sober discussion about computer games we can offer?
meanspartan
Member
lol. Yes, go up against a company that can drown you in paperwork and make it extremely costly in legal fees before trial even begins. great idea.
The only one that stands a chance is YouTube (google). They need to put their fucking foot down on the side of fair use and start suing all these shitbag companies that make it an issue. Of course, they won't.
Damn I loved this video had me laughing for quite a good portion, thank god for Jim. My only real issue with this video was the lack of Chains of Love, this song should be Nintendo's theme during your videos Jim.
hahaha great job Jim, I always love it when you use disingenious titles that condone illegal stuff to make people on forums go crazy before watching the very thought-provoking video!
I also like your attitude that if someone does something wrong(or out of their perspective don't do it because their laws are different) then you don't give a shit about people wronging them, an eye for an eye should be applied more often in this centuary.
I also like your attitude that if someone does something wrong(or out of their perspective don't do it because their laws are different) then you don't give a shit about people wronging them, an eye for an eye should be applied more often in this centuary.
James Scott
Banned
Content ID is an automated service that targets music or video. While it's probably bad business, it's not stealing much like using Eminem/Kanye music and getting content ID/taken down isn't stealing.
Even if it's clickbait/lying, saying that it's ok to pirate any software is pretty shitty. He already suggested as much previously with the VC.
Even if it's clickbait/lying, saying that it's ok to pirate any software is pretty shitty. He already suggested as much previously with the VC.
Moral rights, legal rights, not the same thing
Why should what Nintendo *wants* override the rights of literally everbody else on earth fo express themselves however they please? Why are corporate profits more important to people than freedom of speech?
LordRaptor
Member
Nintendo put copyrighted works up on Youtube.
They have a licence for those works.
They use Content matching to ensure that anyone using those works does so under the correct licence.
Take "Nintendo" out of the equation.
YOU put up a copyrighted work on youtube - a thing YOU have created. You put specific usage terms for that work in your upload.
Company A takes your work and uses it for commercial reasons without following the terms you laid out for that works use.
Fuck you, they do what they want?
or
You have the right to monetise that work even if they don't want you to?
e:
You can't just upload someone elses work onto your own channel, say "FAIR USE!" and that's that! That's the point!
Things Nintendo have uploaded are done so under a licence, and that licence is "Using this thing we have made and uploaded means we get ad revenue from it"
If you don't agree with that licence;
1) Don't use that thing
2) Contest how you are a special snowflake that is exempt from that licence
3) Ignore Nintendo completely and pretend they don't exist so you never have any need to use their things
4) Go somewhere that does not provide automated licencing services for copyright holders
Can't say I agree at all.
He's using footage from Nintendo games to add value to his own product. It would be cool for them to allow it but I don't see why they have to.
To me fair use means someone like Dunkey or hell Giant Bomb playing a game themselves and talking over it. That's criticism. Playing the trailer for Zelda - footage he didn't even capture himself - to underscore his point isn't criticism.
Also even if he were 100% in the right regarding fair use, the argument that them making claims on his videos somehow makes it okay to pirate games is just ridiculous sophomoric excuse-making. He sounds like a torrent site comment section.
Also, yes, he does make money off these videos. This isn't like a fan game put up for free on the internet. Jim has a Patreon and one of its selling points is that it helps keep his YouTube videos ad free. He isn't getting paid by YouTube directly but that doesn't mean he's some fan doing it out of a love of video games.
He's using footage from Nintendo games to add value to his own product. It would be cool for them to allow it but I don't see why they have to.
To me fair use means someone like Dunkey or hell Giant Bomb playing a game themselves and talking over it. That's criticism. Playing the trailer for Zelda - footage he didn't even capture himself - to underscore his point isn't criticism.
Also even if he were 100% in the right regarding fair use, the argument that them making claims on his videos somehow makes it okay to pirate games is just ridiculous sophomoric excuse-making. He sounds like a torrent site comment section.
Also, yes, he does make money off these videos. This isn't like a fan game put up for free on the internet. Jim has a Patreon and one of its selling points is that it helps keep his YouTube videos ad free. He isn't getting paid by YouTube directly but that doesn't mean he's some fan doing it out of a love of video games.
lastrealgameralive
Member
In the future can we have full transcripts in the OP of the video for clickbait titles on GAF?