Support NeoGAF

[Seik]

So the man hasn't changed a bit since the whole DRM events with the PS4/One.

Just to move it away from just Nintendo fans:

He's pretty much being rude to anyone.

What a fucking douche, he low blows anyone that come with a descent statement. I can't stand people like that, he act like he's a higher being.

 

[Interceptor]

Ah i love these professional 'journalists' in our industry. Use content without clarification, sit down in a corner and cry and make tweets about it when you have to invest a couple of hours to fix your mistake. It's called working.

 

[Zombie James]

That would be something.

This didn't take long..

Cause and effect right here. I don't know why Nintendo acts this way, but it just cost them some free advertising.

 

[Dead Man]

So if we can't make money while showing somebodies work, does that mean Evilore is going to jail for the screenshots thread?

I hope you don't feel smart when you post something like this.

If you want to be consistent, then virtually everything on Twitch.tv breaks copyright law, or to be more accurate, "infringes on copyright." Any publisher has the right to swoop in and prohibit their products from being streamed if they so choose to expend the time and legal resources to fight that battle. Are you going to sit here and tell me that everyone using that site is a non-compliant criminal for not obtaining express written consent to stream other people's copyrighted works?

There's a lot of nuance to be found in this issue. Corporations like Nintendo are technically in the right to exercise tight control over their works, but the question isn't "can they," it's "should they." I'm hard-pressed to see what they gain from it.

It's possible to simultaneously think that Totalbisuit is a childish assclown who plays favorites, hurts his case, and is logically inconsistent, while also thinking that this particular issue really is something that needs to be challenged when the situation calls for it.

Good post.

 

[Vagabundo]

haha Totalbiscuit vs the Automated YT Content system. What a moron.

 

[Shengar]

Shit talking and being rude to eveyone would garner fame to you. God, I fucking hate twitter. Elitist with an attitude of fanboy, what a fucking shame.

 

[CambriaRising]

Tb is a total toolbag, but Nintendo is in the wrong here if this is more than an automated takedown.

 

[Coxy]

protip: you dont decide what's right and wrong based on how much you like the people or corporations involved

 

[Rubius]

You are aware what he did was against copyright laws. Would you award him for breaking the law? Or expect him to comply with it like everyone else.

He did free publicity for Nintendo by showing the trailer. He did not show a movie. He did not show something else. He showed a trailer of the game. Really, Japanese companies seem to have a lot of problem to understand how the internet work somehow. Free Publicity is good publicity.
And why is IGN allowed to show a trailer, in slow, slow, slow motion, showing every detail possible on the trailer, but showing the trailer as it's shown on multiple website not. I know it's a automatic process, but still. It's not a movie. It's an ad.

 

[Shengar]

protip: you dont decide what's right and wrong based on how much you like the people or corporations involved

I agree. Nintendo strictness is air choking sometimes, but that doesn't mean TB have the right to be total shitheads to everyone who have different opinions than him. Being cynical and talking shit on majority of gaming community seems a popular thing for some people I guess.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Tb is a total toolbag, but Nintendo is in the wrong here if this is more than an automated takedown.

1) It's automated, but Nintendo is the party with the means to flip the switch.
2) There's no takedown involved. Your video gets flagged for a content match and you are no longer able to monetize it.

 

[lenovox1]

And why is IGN allowed to show a trailer, in slow, slow, slow motion, showing every detail possible on the trailer, but showing the trailer as it's shown on multiple website not. I know it's a automatic process, but still. It's not a movie. It's an ad.

If you're aware of that, then you've answered your own question. There is no "but still" here. In this particular scenario, it did not concern the algorithms that identified the video as having Nintendo's content that what TotalBiscuit was doing was what you called free publicity. That's, apparently, not in the programming.

 

[McDougles]

The way this scenario is playing out you'd think TB stands for Taking Ball and now he'll be playing Gone Home.

...I tried.

 

[Shard]

As much as I have grown to dislike TotalBiscuit I am with him here, this is pettiness beyond the boarders of sanity even if it automatic. On the other hand TotalBiscuit is a very amusing gesture.

 

[Nerokis]

shitstorm against me, OMG HELP

This is such a cheap move. Seriously, the threshold for sending a herd of vitriolic Twitter followers after someone should be much higher than that.

 

[Shard]

Note sure why anybody would think he would have changed after the Sony debacle, indeed that would require a complete gimmick overhaul.

 

[lenovox1]

As much as I have grown to dislike TotalBiscuit I am with him here, this is pettiness beyond the boarders of sanity even if it automatic.

The great thing about YouTube's Content ID system is that it allows you to dispute and even appeal a claim if you think that the claim is invalid. The channel's holder decided not to take that approach. They decided to remove the video.

No one was petty here. No one did the wrong thing, not even TotalBiscuit. Everyone did what they could or thought the should do based on the tools they were given. It simply happened how it happened.

 

[Rubius]

This is such a cheap move. Seriously, the threshold for sending a herd of vitriolic Twitter followers after someone should be much higher than that.

You mean like people in this thread going after TB to insult him? Isnt that the exact same thing?
People on Twitter are dicks, the low character count does that, but also the fact that people answer in the same way. Arguing with people who can only make one sentence is pretty irritating.

 

[Shengar]

You mean like people in this thread going after TB to insult him? Isnt that the exact same thing?
People on Twitter are dicks, the low character count does that, but also the fact that people answer in the same way. Arguing with people who can only make one sentence is pretty irritating.

Twitter is toxic and it should be bombed soon.

 

[Rubius]

If you're aware of that, then you've answered your own question. There is no "but still" here. In this particular scenario, it did not concern the algorithms that identified the video as having Nintendo's content that what TotalBiscuit was doing was what you called free publicity. That's, apparently, not in the programming.

Japanese companies are really the only one I see doing that for some reason. I dont get what is the reasoning. "Let stop people from showing our game, this way we will be sure to get more sales!"
I just dont get why the program is up and running. Are they scared that somebody will steal the ad and use it as a Pokemon ad? Gain money out of the ad, which IGN does?

 

[Sixfortyfive]

The great thing about YouTube's Content ID system is that it allows you to dispute and even appeal a claim if you think that the claim is invalid. The channel's holder decided not to take that approach. They decided to remove the video.

And that's probably the smartest move, because the appeals process is riskier than you let on.

I went through it once myself, before the content matching system was ironed out and the punishment for users at the wrong end of a copyright violation was a bit more severe. My video of the YMCA stage of Elite Beat Agents got flagged several years ago by the record company for the use of the song. Today, that would probably just result in a content match and I'd be blocked from running ads on it, which wouldn't bother me. Back then, though, that meant that the entire video was blocked outright and that I lost the ability to use several Youtube features. In order to get them back, I'd have to appeal the claim.

So that's what I did. I filed a counter-claim on the basis that the song was just a background track incidentally used in a video game and that it was a cover version recorded by an entirely different artist anyway, but it was still a roll of the dice on my part. When you make a DMCA counter-claim, the rights holder is notified and they basically have two options: ignore the offense and let you off the hook... or take your ass to court, in which case I'd have probably been fucked. My logic, though, was that it just wouldn't have been worth it for them to bother, and it proved to be correct. I'm one of thousands of small-time individual users who doesn't get many views and doesn't even bother monetizing anything I upload. There's not really enough for them to gain from actually going through with all of the legal procedures needed to actually take my ass to court. These corporations might have an intern or two who just flippantly scour Youtube to find every video they could feasibly take down, but they aren't necessarily willing to call your bluff when push comes to shove. Even if they "win" according to the law, sometimes it's just not a fight worth fighting.

I'd wager that EVO probably made a similar calculation when they decided to go through with running Smash Bros this year. They could have tried to get everything squared away with Nintendo's legal office from the outset, but the odds of being shut down right at the start are pretty high considering how draconian Nintendo is in this kind of field. Instead, EVO just ran the tournament on the assumption that Nintendo wouldn't dare shut it down and leave hundreds, possibly thousands of Smash Bros fans who made travel arrangements to Las Vegas for the event high and dry. Ultimately, after utilizing the power of mass pubic outrage, EVO's judgement turned out to be correct.

This situation, though? TotalBiscuit gets a lot of views. Probably makes a decent chunk of change. And he can't count on mass public outrage to help no matter how much he bitches and moans about it on Twitter. If he filed a counter-claim and Nintendo thought they were in the right to maintain that much control over their IP, I could see them busting his ass for it. Cutting out the footage in question is the right move. So is public advocacy against Nintendo's copyright policy, for that matter; too bad he's kind of a clown about how he does it.

 

[lenovox1]

Japanese companies are really the only one I see doing that for some reason. I dont get what is the reasoning. "Let stop people from showing our game, this way we will be sure to get more sales!"
I just dont get why the program is up and running. Are they scared that somebody will steal the ad and use it as a Pokemon ad? Gain money out of the ad, which IGN does?

First off, Nintendo wasn't the first and certainly isn't the only video game company that utilizes YouTube's Content ID service. Microsoft is a "famous" example that's been posted a couple of times in this thread.

And the use of Content ID in and of itself isn't as nefarious as you put forward. Nobody's scared of anything. It merely allows copyright holders to monitor the use of their content and control how that content is being used through an automatic means.

And that's probably the smartest move, because the appeals process is riskier than you let on.

I went through it once myself, before the content matching system was ironed out and the punishment for users at the wrong end of a copyright violation was a bit more severe. My video of the YMCA stage of Elite Beat Agents got flagged several years ago by the record company for the use of the song. Today, that would probably just result in a content match and I'd be blocked from running ads on it, which wouldn't bother me. Back then, though, that meant that the entire video was blocked outright and that I lost the ability to use several Youtube features. In order to get them back, I'd have to appeal the claim.

So that's what I did. I filed a counter-claim on the basis that the song was just a background track incidentally used in a video game and that it was a cover version recorded by an entirely different artist anyway, but it was still a roll of the dice on my part. When you make a DMCA counter-claim, the rights holder is notified and they basically have two options: ignore the offense and let you off the hook... or take your ass to court, in which case I'd have probably been fucked[...]

This situation, though? TotalBiscuit gets a lot of views. Probably makes a decent chunk of change. And he can't count on mass public outrage to help no matter how much he bitches and moans about it on Twitter. If he filed a counter-claim and Nintendo thought they were in the right to maintain that much control over their IP, I could see them busting his ass for it. Cutting out the footage in question is the right move. So is public advocacy against Nintendo's copyright policy, for that matter; too bad he's kind of a clown about how he does it.

Two things: I think he was well within "fair use" grounds. I think if the owner's of the channel that this video was posted, Polaris, decided to dispute the Content ID match, they'd probably be successful. That they didn't want to deal with it at all was totally their call, and I don't blame them for it.

Also, apparently, if your dispute of a Content ID match is found to be invalid, YouTube may merely give you a strike and they may remove the video in question. Now, the appeals process after that may be exactly how you describe and as I quoted from you.

 

[VandalD]

TotalBiscuit talks for about 10 minutes on this subject.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

TotalBiscuit talks for about 10 minutes on this subject.

I can't listen to this right now. Is this a logical explanation of why, even though copyright holders should be able to monitor and protect their IPs, they should be open to allowing a reasonable amount of leeway when it comes to video used to promote intelligent discussion on YouTube, and YouTube should create a better system for enforcing the wishes of copyright holders?

 

[MemoryHumanity]

Always said Total Biscuit was a complete tool. As is that Zero Punctuation dude.

 

[Timeless]

How is this not fair use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[4]

 

[Mondy]

If anyone wants to have a crack at TB over anything on Twitter, make it his jealousy and disdain of Pewdiepie over how many more subscribers he has over TB. That will really get him worked up.

 

[fallagin]

How is this not fair use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

I dont have a clue, but google pretty much gives content holders free reign on any of this stuff. The atlus persona account was getting videos blocked by a russian singer's youtube account a few weeks back. The system is pretty trigger happy right now, which is ironically a really bad thing for content creation.

 

[VandalD]

I can't listen to this right now. Is this a logical explanation of why, even though copyright holders should be able to monitor and protect their IPs, they should be open to allowing a reasonable amount of leeway when it comes to video used to promote intelligent discussion on YouTube, and YouTube should create a better system for enforcing the wishes of copyright holders?

It's logical from his point of view as a YouTube producer that leeway should gladly be given to show off video, especially a trailer, while discussing a game. This especially being the case because this show has no pre-announced content, aside from who will actually be on it for the week. Viewers of this show watch it for the hosts and guest, and never particularly for talk on a certain game because of the fact that the viewers, and even the hosts, don't know what games they'll be talking about.

He doesn't talk about YouTube policies or enforcement. His focus is on how Nintendo is being dumb about this. I don't think that's the wrong point of view to take either. They have shown many, many videos on this podcast, including trailers. This has only happened once before with Square Enix. Every other company has been fine with trailers and other videos being shown on their games. If not showing anything by Nintendo or Square Enix on the show fixes the problem of copyright claims, then I wouldn't think it's YouTube that needs to be fixed. Yes, YouTube has an automated copyright claim system, but this only happened once before, and before THAT, they were showing trailers in full screen for over a year on a nearly weekly basis. In this instance, they were simply talking over video of a Pokemon trailer with no sound. It's perfectly reasonable to hold the belief that Nintendo is just being dumb about the internet.

 

[Kinyou]

That would be something.

This didn't take long..

Does he even talk much about Nintendo to begin with? I thought his channel and podcast were mainly PC focused

 

[VandalD]

Does he even talk much about Nintendo to begin with? I thought his channel and podcast were mainly PC focused

He doesn't on his own channel, but the podcast is about gaming in general, not just PC gaming.

 

[Mondy]

The Polaris podcast should have an option to mute TB and leave Cox, Dodger and the guest live. I even find his voice annoying.

 

[lenovox1]

It's logical from his point of view as a YouTube producer that leeway should gladly be given to show off video, especially a trailer, while discussing a game.

Yes.

But the Content ID system doesn't care. It simply knows that {audio and/or video} content is present in a video, and what the owner of said {audio/video} would like to have done in that scenario. The subtleties don't matter. Polaris didn't want to deal with disputing the match. It can't help but make errors in that scenario. It has no bearing on and is no metric of what Nintendo does or does not know about the Internet.

Any other complaint is a complaint that holds the opinion that IP holders shouldn't have the right to control the monetization of what is legally and rightfully their own content. That position would be untenable to me. (Not in his specific scenario, of course, but in general.)

 

[TyrantGuardian]

TotalBiscuit talks for about 10 minutes on this subject.

This thread is ridiculous with the amount of vitriol spewed. It's like TB ran over all of your pets, reading some of these posts. Of course, no one will take the time to listen to this recording and hear what the actual issue is, even though its pretty obvious to anyone who isn't personally insulted by criticism aimed at a corporation.

It's a fucking trailer - an ad. There's literally zero to be gained monetarily for their podcast by using it (no one watches it in order to watch a promotional trailer) and there's literally not a thing lost for Nintendo. It's free advertising, nothing less, nothing more. You know, that stuff companies pay millions upon millions of dollars for?

Good on TB and the others for not putting up with this shit and just boycotting these companies and their garbage policies instead. Automated or not, Nintendo set their videos to use content matching in the first place, which in cases like this is completely ridiculous.

 

[VandalD]

Yes.

But the Content ID system doesn't care. It simply knows that {audio and/or video} content is present in a video, and what the owner of said {audio/video} would like to have done in that scenario. The subtleties don't matter. Polaris didn't want to deal with disputing the match. It can't help but make errors in that scenario. It has no bearing on and is no metric of what Nintendo does or does not know about the Internet.

Any other complaint is a complaint that holds the opinion that IP holders shouldn't have the right to control the monetization of what is legally and rightfully their own content. That position would be ludicrous to me. (Not in his specific scenario, of course, but in general.)

Going off of what you've said, as I am certainly ignorant of how the process works in the back end, then I believe it is still perfectly reasonable to have a bad opinion on Nintendo about this. If it is the owner's (Nintendo's) decision on what to have done in this scenario, then it's on them. I also believe that Polaris didn't want to deal with disputing because it's easier and quicker to just take the video down and edit the trailer out, but I don't know this for sure. Again, this has only happened with Square Enix once before, and Nintendo just this recently. They took the same process of re-editing the video in Square Enix's case. They have shown many other full screen trailers on the show before. It's Nintendo's decision how to handle it, so it's likely on them that a copyright claim was put up.

Something else that further muddies the issue is that Polaris apparently has a contract with YouTube to protect its network of producers from copyright claims. I would think that this contract would allow Nintendo to protect its IP from those it has not made deals with, while allowing Polaris to show their content. If this isn't the case, I'd think that'd certainly be something for everyone to work towards. It could be that they just don't have a deal with Nintendo, and Nintendo finally detected something, or finally took action. We can only speculate. This isn't even the first time they've shown a Pokemon trailer.

I wouldn't argue that IP holders shouldn't have the right to monitor and control the distribution of their own content. Maybe they should have disputed the claim to hopefully solve the issue instead of working around it, but I have only conjecture as to what their reasoning or intentions were in taking this course.

The bottom line of this whole thread is that Nintendo was never taking down YouTube content, at least as far as I'm aware. They started claiming ad revenue as their own. This episode of the Co-Optional Podcast being claimed by Nintendo is just another instance of this happening.

 

[lenovox1]

Going off of what you've said, as I am certainly ignorant of how the process works in the back end, then I believe it is still perfectly reasonable to have a bad opinion on Nintendo about this. If it is the owner's (Nintendo's) decision on what to have done in this scenario, then it's on them. I also believe that Polaris didn't want to deal with disputing because it's easier and quicker to just take the video down and edit the trailer out, but I don't know this for sure. Again, this has only happened with Square Enix once before, and Nintendo just this recently. They took the same process of re-editing the video in Square Enix's case. They have shown many other full screen trailers on the show before. It's Nintendo's decision how to handle it, so it's likely on them that a copyright claim was put up.

Okay. I personally wouldn't think there was anything wrong with having that opinion. But, just speaking on his reaction, I would think that events like this would illicit an, "Oh, well. That kind of sucks. I should probably tell my fans about why and how my podcast got taken down, " and not what his initial reaction ended up being. I especially wouldn't expect the reaction he had from someone that is fully aware of how YouTube's Content ID works, as was brought up in this thread.

His reaction completely stifled any reasonable discussion he could have spurred, as shown by this very thread and his own Twitter discussions.

 

[BGBW]

Would you work free for 3+ hours?

Yes. It's called volunteering. Lots of people do it.

 

[Canis lupus]

Good news, I rather not see Nintendo videos than only see videos of people shouting and trying to be funny while playing a game. Its really hard to find proper, clean videogame footage anymore.

 

[troushers]

The legal concept of fair use has very little relevance when you dabbling in a corporations extralegal internet playground, and have signed terms of service agreement allowing them to do basically anything they wish. Youtube's policies in this case could be anything, legal or illegal, and you would still have to repect them, because no-one is going to waste their time and money testing it in court.

TotalBiscuit's absurd tantrum should be directed at the Youtube system which pays him a living - but don't hold your breath waiting for him to realise this. Far easier (and safer) to blame a copyright holder understandably using the systems which (the DMCA mandated that) Youtube created to stop other people rehosting and profiting off their own creations.

 

[ScribbleD]

How is this not fair use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

It probably is. That's why you can appeal content ID copyright matches. TB chose not to do that.

 

[VandalD]

The legal concept of fair use has very little relevance when you dabbling in a corporations extralegal internet playground, and have signed terms of service agreement allowing them to do basically anything they wish. Youtube's policies in this case could be anything, legal or illegal, and you would still have to repect them, because no-one is going to waste their time and money testing it in court.

TotalBiscuit's absurd tantrum should be directed at the Youtube system which pays him a living - but don't hold your breath waiting for him to realise this. Far easier (and safer) to blame a copyright holder understandably using the systems which (the DMCA mandated that) Youtube created to stop other people rehosting and profiting off their own creations.

Why are people even considering this an absurd tantrum? He informed people that the video wouldn't be up, said who claimed it, and also said why the video wouldn't be up until later than expected. He's not sweating this. This does not harm him in the slightest. He's not even the one who has to re-edit and re-upload the podcast. At most, it's frustrating that Nintendo has taken this stance. He'll not show any more Nintendo stuff, and both sides will apparently be happier for it. There was no need for discussion on anyone's part except between Polaris, TB, and Nintendo. To tweet at him with things like "you realize the content ID is automatic, yes?" just looks like someone taking a futile attempt to get one over on him. As if he doesn't know how his job works.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

I don't understand why TB is always so invective on twitter.

 

[The Red Wizard]

It probably is. That's why you can appeal content ID copyright matches. TB chose not to do that.

He shouldn't have to. Nintendo and Google are large corporations with enough money to hire excellent legal services and so should be aware that such moves are unlikely to hold water in court. Consequently it appears that such companies, when they make content ID copyright matches or any similar moves, are aiming to intimidate people who upload videos to YouTube to review or comment on games.

 

[ScribbleD]

He shouldn't have to. Nintendo and Google are large corporations with enough money to hire excellent legal services and so should be aware that such moves are unlikely to hold water in court. Consequently it appears that such companies, when they make content ID copyright matches or any similar moves, are aiming to intimidate people who upload videos to YouTube to review or comment on games.

Am I missing something?

These types of copyright claims are automatic. Nintendo defines certain parameters (people can use x seconds of the video before it shows up as matched content) and the system looks for anything that Nintendo owns which they have defined as copyrighted content and flags that video for having said content available. At this point the video cannot be monetized. Nintendo could then decide to take further action by having the video pulled off of Youtube.

Here's the thing, though. If the content you are using falls under fair use, all you do is go into your video manager, click around for the button that lets you appeal the content match, and write a short statement stating you are using the content under the provisions of fair use. Your appeal is reviewed and either approved or denied.

The reason I asked whether or not I'm missing something is because you're brining up legal services and the decision not holding water in court...which is irrelevant to my point.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about how the Youtube content matching system works. It's mostly automated. This isn't to say it isn't flawed, but its flaws aren't being discussed with the proper understanding of what is actually going on.

 

[BGBW]

He shouldn't have to. Nintendo and Google are large corporations with enough money to hire excellent legal services and so should be aware that such moves are unlikely to hold water in court. Consequently it appears that such companies, when they make content ID copyright matches or any similar moves, are aiming to intimidate people who upload videos to YouTube to review or comment on games.

Doubt that final point otherwise channels like GameXplain wouldn't exist since they focus 100% on Nintendo.

This case was probably small potatoes for both Nintendo and Google so they probably weren't even aware of it. Isn't that the point of the appeal process, to bring it to Google's attention? Google claims "100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute" so they likely don't have the man power to check every video being uploaded and flagged which is why the tools for flagging and appealing are in place.

TB in his 10 minute rant claims that Nintendo should actually be paying him for the advert, because that's how TV works. Actually that would only be true if Nintendo went to them and asked for the placement, like when Reggie appears on that American chat show. Since it's clearly the other way round it would be down to TB to ask Nintendo for permission, and, like he says, it's basically free advertising for Nintendo so Nintendo would probably grant it. But he obviously didn't.

People can cry fair use till the cows come home, but Nintendo also has to be seen protecting their IPs. They and others would be in a sticky situation if people could use their works willy nilly without their say.

Basically the moral of this story is. If in doubt just ask. Doesn't cost much to send an email.

 

[Rubius]

Yes. It's called volunteering. Lots of people do it.

Except that it's his job. It's not a hobby, it's not something he do for fun. He gain money, he need that money to pay for his kid, wife and other stuff. You do free work after work, not during work.

I don't understand why TB is always so invective on twitter.

He do not like to interacts with fans and do not have any tolerance for resistance or critisism that is not polite, and even polite one are bad. A lot of artists are like that.
TheSpoonyOne send people to go fuck themselves for asking why he get sick so often after he himself said that he was sick again. But Spoony was diagnosed with Type B Bipolar. I doubt TB is Bipolar like that.

 

[MIlky1985]

I really REALLY don't get TB's hate on this one, for the simple reason that he knows it will happen because it ALWAYS happens when he puts official trailers from big name publishers in the podcast, it happens to Ubisoft ones, to some activision ones, to some square enix ones, and he whines about it on twitter every single time.

Oddly he said a while back that he was going to stop using trailers on the podcast because this happens, so hes obviously gone back on that.

And the reason for this is that they are all content matched to stop people reuploading the trailers and monetizing it to get free cash, as some idiots do.

All he has to do is use the YouTube system, you get a flag, you contend it NOT by saying that you own the rights (assume people try) but that its fair use, that you are not doing the original material any disservice and have made it a transformation work and ping its gets sorted.

I don't think Nintendo are flagging gameplay, just trailers tbh. I have my own channel, did a lets play of DmC and started one of Wonderful 101, neither monetized due to lack of partnership with Polaris etc. DmC gets flagged due to the cutscenes mainly yet the wonderful 101 gameplay, that has the start and the prologue etc, not flagged [edit] Its the full prologue and the first level as well so if it was going to to get flagged, it should have been by now

Long and short of it is, this happens all the time, all companies put there trailers into the content ID system to stop people just re-uploading and making money, he doesn't need to be such a man child and throw insults around to people trying to debate with him so much every time it happens.

Going off of what you've said, as I am certainly ignorant of how the process works in the back end, then I believe it is still perfectly reasonable to have a bad opinion on Nintendo about this. If it is the owner's (Nintendo's) decision on what to have done in this scenario, then it's on them. I also believe that Polaris didn't want to deal with disputing because it's easier and quicker to just take the video down and edit the trailer out, but I don't know this for sure.

Content ID is automatic, they likely put it on the trailer which is sensible and no reason to have a bad opinion of Nintendo because there probably wasn't a decision made on this video done by anything other than a computer.

It's a fucking trailer - an ad. There's literally zero to be gained monetarily for their podcast by using it (no one watches it in order to watch a promotional trailer) and there's literally not a thing lost for Nintendo. It's free advertising, nothing less, nothing more. You know, that stuff companies pay millions upon millions of dollars for?.

The issue is that idiots take said trailer, upload it to there own channel , make zero changes and enable monitization. So companies have to put there trailers into the content id system to stop that, which is a legit thing. It causes some cases like the one here where changes have been made to get flagged because it detects the video, which is what the dispute system is for, and we don't know if he even bothered to use it.

 

[Tripon]

Doubt that final point otherwise channels like GameXplain wouldn't exist since they focus 100% on Nintendo.

This case was probably small potatoes for both Nintendo and Google so they probably weren't even aware of it. Isn't that the point of the appeal process, to bring it to Google's attention? Google claims "100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute" so they likely don't have the man power to check every video being uploaded and flagged which is why the tools for flagging and appealing are in place.

TB in his 10 minute rant claims that Nintendo should actually be paying him for the advert, because that's how TV works. Actually that would only be true if Nintendo went to them and asked for the placement, like when Reggie appears on that American chat show. Since it's clearly the other way round it would be down to TB to ask Nintendo for permission, and, like he says, it's basically free advertising for Nintendo so Nintendo would probably grant it. But he obviously didn't.

People can cry fair use till the cows come home, but Nintendo also has to be seen protecting their IPs. They and others would be in a sticky situation if people could use their works willy nilly without their say.

Basically the moral of this story is. If in doubt just ask. Doesn't cost much to send an email.

This is my issue with TB's stance. The guy is a professional (for lack of a better term) and this is his job. He already ran into this issue at least once with Square-Enix, and definitely has a good idea how content ID matching works on youtube.

As for Polaris now banning Nintendo stuff on its podcast, I doubt it since Polaris knows it has a large Nintendo fanbase, and when a ND or a new game comes out, they will want to more more of it, and I doubt TB, who lives 3000 miles away from Polaris headquarters in L.A. can change policy like that.

 

[MYE]

Nintendo still doesn't understand the internet.

I think they do. Its a wild west full of dudes who get a free pass in using copyrighted material to pad out their profit-seeking movie channels and sites.
A place where game media is (rightfully btw) used within a context that might or might not be beneficial to the game's reception. But if a company chooses to tighten the leash on pre-launch marketing material in order to control how their shit is being promoted, its their right to do so and I don't really see a problem with that.

I bet they wouldn't mind it if they used the gameplay clips everyone else seems to be using. Or get this, ask for their fucking permission.

 

[StayDead]

This is my issue with TB's stance. The guy is a professional (for lack of a better term) and this is his job. He already ran into this issue at least once with Square-Enix, and definitely has a good idea how content ID matching works on youtube.

As for Polaris now banning Nintendo stuff on its podcast, I doubt it since Polaris knows it has a large Nintendo fanbase, and when a ND or a new game comes out, they will want to more more of it, and I doubt TB, who lives 3000 miles away from Polaris headquarters in L.A. can change policy like that.

That's something I never thought I'd see anyone say. He's one of the least professional people on the English speaking internet. He's so unbelievably childish at all times and the way he uses his legions of rabid followers who'll do anything he say and worship him as some sort of god on earth to berate people is the most unprofessional things I've ever seen.