Support NeoGAF

[Mr. Enigma]

umm.. no, it's not the same thing. Nintendo still has rights to portions of that creation (the portions that are using their copyrighted material exceeding Fair Use).. See the previous discussion. Copyright over one product doesn't negate copyright on the other. In this case, YouTube and its TOS are the mediators and both parties are agreeing to those terms by partnering with YouTube.

I NEVER said it negated anything. I said both parties own what they own: Nintendo owns the footage and the YouTube user owns their voice and whatever else they added to the video. That does not mean "negated" whatsoever. Jesus Christ.

 

[Baleoce]

This Nintendo vs Let's Plays dilemma is a difficult one. They aren't stopping them from producing the content. Just from making money. Which in fairness is a deal-breaker to a lot of let's players. It's a bit pedantic of Nintendo to stop them from making money. Is the revenue really that substantial for them to benefit significantly? Or perhaps it's a more telling sign of their current financial efforts in the console market? (I refuse to believe that last sentiment.) And because of that, I'm even more confused than ever. Why do it? Let the let's players have their fun and supplementary income. In the end it just wreaks of shitting on your hardcore fans. That's not a wise thing to do if you're Nintendo. 'Cos there's a lot of them..

 

[Varjet]

It's pretty funny that some still bring up the point LP are free advertisement for a game. Like it only works in a one-way direction.

 

[PataHikari]

Well said. There is some awesome 'new frontier' entertainment media stuff going on in front of our very eyes. When I'm at home, I more frequently check YouTube for something to watch than cable TV. YouTubers are creating content I find more relevant to my interests, in a much more convenient format that television.

Great!

They're perfectly free to make as much money off their own material as-

Oh wait they're making money off other people's copyrights.

 

[lenovox1]

This is why people should really be mad. Not just because Nintendo is taking away the ability for people to make money, but in the sense that Nintendo is doing the exact same thing they say YouTube people can't do. Nintendo is simply reversing the process; the root activity is still there. If a YouTuber truly owns the commentary and whatever else they add to a gameplay, Nintendo should not be able to profit off that.

Well, legally, they can. They are the gatekeepers to all derivative works that aren't considered fair use.

So now you're just getting mad at Nintendo for setting certain conditions for the use of their original work and for taking a big, fat royalty. And I can't get mad at that. There are much worse things Nintendo could have done here.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Nintendo's free to claim money on their own content. Sure. Why not.

So long as they don't pull anything down, I'm happy.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

Great!

They're perfectly free to make as much money off their own material as-

Oh wait they're making money off other people's copyrights.

And guess what? WoodysGamertag has a partnership with IGN, which gives him express permission to do what he does. Get off your high fucking horse.

 

[PataHikari]

This Nintendo vs Let's Plays dilemma is a difficult one. They aren't stopping them from producing the content. Just from making money. Which in fairness is a deal-breaker to a lot of let's players. It's a bit pedantic of Nintendo to stop them from making money. Is the revenue really that substantial for them to benefit significantly? Or perhaps it's a more telling sign of their current financial efforts in the console market? (I refuse to believe that last sentiment.) And because of that, I'm even more confused than ever. Why do it? Let the let's players have their fun and supplementary income. In the end it just wreaks of shitting on your hardcore fans. That's not a wise thing to do if you're Nintendo. 'Cos there's a lot of them..

How is "hey you can't make money off our stuff" in any way "shitting on their hardcore fans"

 

[Clockwork5]

Copyright isn't something you obtain, it's something that automatically attaches itself to your work, unless you assign it to someone else somehow.

So in other words, yes, if you use a backing track of a song, put your own lyrics on it, that work is yours. There's no "obtaining" or other process involved.

Yes, that work violates someone else's copyright, but you still have yours. You don't have copyright to their original work, just what you've added to it, more or less.

The "Copyright 2013" is not meaningless, it's a reminder; the work is in fact likely copyrighted even without it.

GAF YOU AMAZE ME SOMETIMES! Seriously I would not have expected GAF to come out full-force against LPers. Yipes.

Technically no you do not need to obtain a copyright, but yes it is meaningless if it is not registered with the U.S. Copyright office or the copyright office of the nation in which the material was created. The copyright would not hold up in court without registration, and the ability to sue for unauthorized use or distribution is the entire reason for copyright laws.

So again it is extremely difficult to protect your work without a registered copyright.

 

[jgwhiteus]

This is why people should really be mad. Not just because Nintendo is taking away the ability for people to make money, but in the sense that Nintendo is doing the exact same thing they say YouTube people can't do. Nintendo is simply reversing the process; the root activity is still there. If a YouTuber truly owns the commentary and whatever else they had to a gameplay, Nintendo should not be able to profit off that.

They're allowed to because they were the original copyright holder.

There was a discussion of a song by the Verve earlier in the thread, "Bitter Sweet Symphony". The Rolling Stones composed the original, the Verve heavily sampled it and added their own lyrics. The Rolling Stones asserted copyright, and eventually get 100% of all royalties from the song.

Just because you've added to someone else's work doesn't change the fact that you took from their work in the first place. Let's say I completely copy a TV show, but draw funny cartoon mustaches on all the actors. The TV creator asks that I take it down and give him all the profits I've made from it. "But I drew mustaches! You don't own a copyright in my mustaches!" Well, no, but because you infringed his copyright in the first place, he's entitled to use copyright law to ask for a remedy - whether that be taking your work down, giving him the proceeds, etc.

A lot of times it's situational, but if you infringe someone else's work you are not on equal footing with the original copyright holder. You are not automatically in the same position, with equal bargaining power, simply because you added your own original elements. Again, it's going to depend on the particular situation - e.g., if the work is 95% yours, and you only use a small portion of someone else's work - but priority and the order in which the works was created is important.

 

[PataHikari]

And guess what? WoodysGamertag has a partnership with IGN, which gives him express permission to do what he does. Get off your high fucking horse.

Good for him! The copyright holder has given him permission to make money off their copyright.

Don't see what that has to do with people who don't have permission trying to make money.

 

[eternalb]

And guess what? WoodysGamertag has a partnership with IGN, which gives him express permission to do what he does. Get off your high fucking horse.

I thought it was reported even partnered channels were getting flagged?

 

[Harlock]

Whatever. Nintendo will loose one way or other. Lets hope Mario Galaxy HD be ported for PS3.

 

[borghe]

Well said. There is some awesome 'new frontier' entertainment media stuff going on in front of our very eyes. When I'm at home, I more frequently check YouTube for something to watch than cable TV. YouTubers are creating content I find more relevant to my interests, in a much more convenient format that television.

this is true... and honestly, enforcing copyright is more important than ever now as a result. I said this earlier as well.

Now the fact that it's easier than ever to produce content and reach millions of people (and millions of potential "thieves") makes copyright, something that is hundreds of years old, more important than ever. The "law" on it doesn't need to be changed.. in the sense of relaxing it. If I produce something wholly original, say my dog chewing on a squirrel, I absolutely should maintain my ability to hold copyright on it, even though it's easier than ever now for someone to download it, stick a commentary on it, and upload it back to their own channel.

it's like saying copyright laws have to be adjusted because it's easier than every to download music. nope. copyright is still the exact same. what has to change is the attitude that just because it's easier than ever to minimally repackage/redistribute that content, that it's suddenly somehow less infringing than it used to be.

Technically no you do not need to obtain a copyright, but yes it is meaningless if it is not registered with the U.S. Copyright office or the copyright office of the nation in which the material was created. The copyright would not hold up in court without registration, and the ability to sue for unauthorized use or distribution is the entire reason for copyright laws.

So again an unregistered copyright is worthless.

This is not true.

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

All registration is required for in the US for is for statutory damages based on US copyright law. However you are still eligible for incurred damages and still given copyright upon publication or notice without registration.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

Ask Metallica's attorney if you are legally permitted to write your own words to Enter Sandman and copyright it as your own original work.

Weird Al Yankovic has made a 30-year career doing this.

 

[Htown]

This is why people should really be mad. Not just because Nintendo is taking away the ability for people to make money, but in the sense that Nintendo is doing the exact same thing they say YouTube people can't do. Nintendo is simply reversing the process; the root activity is still there. If a YouTuber truly owns the commentary and whatever else they add to a gameplay, Nintendo should not be able to profit off that.

So I looked it up.

Apparently you still retain all copyrights and such to the things you create that you put up on Youtube, but by putting it on Youtube you grant Youtube a license to do whatever they want with it.

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

So it looks kinda like what's happening is that you upload your LP, and you own YOUR part and DON'T OWN Nintendo's part. Nintendo says, "hey YouTube, that guy doesn't own that stuff", and then they can either say "take that down" or "instead of taking that down, partner up with us and we'll take OUR copyright to OUR stuff and YOUR license to THEIR stuff and let's make some ad money."

 

[PataHikari]

Weird Al Yankovic has made a career doing this.

Weird Al Yankovic is a comedian performing parody.

Though he also asks permission from every artist just to be nice.

 

[Cbajd5]

I've got a question here:

Can the LPers take down the videos once Nintendo's made the ContentID claim on them?

If so, can't they just separate their commentary from Nintendo's copyrighted materials (images, videos, and music)?

Then upload commentary in alone in it's own video, since it's all anyone wants from an LP apparently, which technically Nintendo couldn't claim if it isn't derivative of Nintendo's copyrighted materials? (Which would be easier to claim if none of Nintendo's copyrighted materials were featured in it.)

If this seems unreasonable, as if the LP does not make sense without the context provided by Nintendo's copyrighted materials could they at least put the two parts in separate videos? One featuring Nintendo's stuff, while still technically illegal it appears Nintendo would just place ads on these videos, another featuring their commentary which the LPer would monetize. There's plenty of websites that allow you to easily play two videos together or people who want to can do it themselves.

 

[Clockwork5]

Weird Al Yankovic has made a 30-year career doing this.

beaten, parody laws are acutally quite lenient in the US. Wierd Al is also required to pay royalties to the original artist.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

with permission

Permission that he legally doesn't need.

 

[eternalb]

with permission

Which he didn't need.

 

[PataHikari]

If this seems unreasonable, as if the LP does not make sense without the context provided by Nintendo's copyrighted materials could they at least put the two parts in separate videos? One featuring Nintendo's stuff, while still technically illegal it appears Nintendo would just place ads on these videos, another featuring their commentary which the LPer would monetize. There's plenty of websites that allow you to easily play two videos together or people who want to can do it themselves.

This is exactly what Rifftrax does.

 

[Htown]

I've got a question here:

Can the LPers take down the videos once Nintendo's made the ContentID claim on them?

If so, can't they just separate their commentary from Nintendo's copyrighted materials (images, videos, and music)?

Then upload commentary in alone in it's own video, since it's all anyone wants from an LP apparently, which technically Nintendo couldn't claim if it isn't derivative of Nintendo's copyrighted materials? (Which would be easier to claim if none of Nintendo's copyrighted materials were featured in it.)

If this seems unreasonable, as if the LP does not make sense without the context provided by Nintendo's copyrighted materials could they at least put the two parts in separate videos? One featuring Nintendo's stuff, while still technically illegal it appears Nintendo would just place ads on these videos, another featuring their commentary which the LPer would monetize. There's plenty of websites that allow you to easily play two videos together or people who want to can do it themselves.

they totally could, I would think

this is similar to the way Rifftrax does things, in that they just sell you an MP3 with their commentary and give you instructions on how to sync it up with a movie.

 

[Refreshment.01]

They own the copy they bought, and can thus rent it out. Because it's perfectly within your rights to let other people rent your property. Again, they can't make new copies. But they can rent or sell any copies they own.

I left that one ouyt of the disscussion. Please adress my other points. Also please stop with the copying. There's not copying in a lt's play. There's no modification of the IP, no tinkering with the contents, no false claim over property rights, etc.

"Let's plays" are sometimes more about the person playing than the game itself.

Nintendo is been absolutly stupid here. Penalising the fans that support them even with all their BS moves, when they need them more than ever. This type of content consumption has been in an upwards trend for years. Why didn't Nintendo create an infrastructure for users to share this type of content in their platforms?

Even if by "law" they are right, why should we side with them in this case?

It's kind of hard to tell based on views how much a person makes (adblock and all that jazz), but the final content is split between the partner company and the content creator. The final percentage cut varies between companies (for some it's 70/30, for me it's 50/50). The top name LP'ers, it'd be a fair amount. Nowhere near as much as SocialBlade and other sites make it, though. Using that is a suckers game. It once said I'd earned $500 in a month and I just laughed and laughed and laughed.

It's a very vague system. I've been doing this for a few years now and even I still have trouble with the specifics.

And you probably got thousands of hits? Adverisement for pennys. The funny thing is, the popular players end up selling games to the people that follow them, many cases in where the watcher wasn't even interested in the game.

What's going on here? Nintendo is making all the wrong moves!

 

[borghe]

So I looked it up.

Apparently you still retain all copyrights and such to the things you create that you put up on Youtube, but by putting it on Youtube you grant Youtube a license to do whatever they want with it.



So it looks kinda like what's happening is that you upload your LP, and you own YOUR part and DON'T OWN Nintendo's part. Nintendo says, "hey YouTube, that guy doesn't own that stuff", and then they can either say "take that down" or "instead of taking that down, partner up with us and we'll take OUR copyright to OUR stuff and YOUR license to THEIR stuff and let's make some ad money."

yes, this is 100% correct and what we were stating before. The LP'ers maintain a copyright on their work, but Nintendo still maintains a copyright on THEIR (Nintendo's) work. In this case YouTube acts as the mediator, and both parties at this point have agreed to YouTube's decision based on acceptance of those terms.

Conversely, if Nintendo uploaded the gamer's LP video to their own channel, the gamer could claim content id match on it.

 

[Cbajd5]

This is exactly what Rifftrax does.

they totally could, I would think

this is similar to the way Rifftrax does things, in that they just sell you an MP3 with their commentary and give you instructions on how to sync it up with a movie.

Rifftrax is why I brought it up, as most people don't seem to even think of LPers doing the same thing as a viable method.

Main point of the post was an answer to the first question, whether they can take a Video down once Nintendo's claimed it or not.

 

[Clockwork5]

Permission that he legally doesn't need.

He is required to pay royalties to the original artist. Because he is using their copyrighted material.

 

[PataHikari]

Even if by "law" they are right, why should we side with them in this case?

Because it's stupid to think you can or should be able to make any money from a video of you playing video games.

You want to make an LP? That's fine. But don't expect it to be a job. Because it's not. It's an extension of a hobby.

 

[Metal B]

Is the profit been made out of the game or out of the person playing the game?

Is it made of people buying the game.

 

[Refreshment.01]

It's pretty funny that some still bring up the point LP are free advertisement for a game. Like it only works in a one-way direction.

NIntendo is the one that wants it in "ONE DIRECTION".

Think about it....

Because it's stupid to think you can or should be able to make any money from a video of you playing video games.

You want to make an LP? That's fine. But don't expect it to be a job. Because it's not. It's an extension of a hobby.

MLG? Fighting Tournaments? Star Craft? DOTA 2?

Is it made of people buying the game.

I don't uderstand your reply.

 

[borghe]

regarding Weird Al... oh man.. that is REALLY a tricky subject.. Yes what he is doing is parody.. and here is where modern copyright law is goofy. Because various PARTS of the songs are individually copyrighted (music, words, samples, etc)... he would basically be stupid to not approach the original artists for permission. Which is why he does it for every song.

I believe he actually even did NOT get permission from Lady Gaga, but was still within right under parody.. but still, with all of the given copyrights on just a single song these days... you are really rolling the dice that SOME aspect of your parody ends up not being considered as parody and instead as usage.

He is required to pay royalties to the original artist.

No, he is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"Weird_Al"_Yankovic

Yankovic had reported an interest in parodying Lady Gaga's material, and on April 20 announced that he had written and recorded a parody of "Born This Way" titled "Perform This Way", to be the lead single for his new album. However, upon first submitting it to Lady Gaga's manager for approval (which Yankovic does as a courtesy), he was not given permission to release it commercially. As he had previously done under similar circumstances (with his parody of James Blunt's "You're Beautiful"), Yankovic then released the song for free on the internet. Soon afterwards, Gaga's manager admitted that he had denied the parody of his own accord without forwarding the song to his client, and upon seeing it online, Lady Gaga granted permission for the parody. Yankovic has stated that all of his proceeds from the parody and its music video will be donated to the Human Rights Campaign, to support the human rights themes of the original song.

 

[eternalb]

But don't expect it to be a job. Because it's not. It's an extension of a hobby.

You could describe almost every videogame industry job in that same way.

 

[PataHikari]

I left that one ouyt of the disscussion. Please adress my other points. Also please stop with the copying. There's not copying in a lt's play. There's no modification of the IP, no tinkering with the contents, no false claim over property rights, etc.

Yes there is. It's a Derivative Work.

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

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

 

[Metal B]

And you probably got thousands of hits? Adverisement for pennys. The funny thing is, the popular players end up selling games to the people that follow them, many cases in where the watcher wasn't even interested in the game.
What's going on here? Nintendo is making all the wrong moves!

Really? Show me the numbers, how many Nintendo games get sold through Let's Plays? Where is the prove to your sentence?

 

[Refreshment.01]

Yes there is. It's a Derivative Work.

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

I just read the description you put in the post. Can you expand in how this applies to the let's play?

Really? Show me the numbers, how many Nintendo games get sold through Let's Plays? Where is the prove to your sentence?

Only after you show me how many of them the existance of "let's plays" stop selling.

The point is the game get's exposition. If the "let's player" is charismatic he tends to do a fantastic job portraying the game. Is just human nature, i don't need back up data to be pretty sure of this types of things.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

I believe he actually even did NOT get permission from Nirvana, but was still within right under parody..

Not true at all. From Yankovic's Wikipedia page:

Dave Grohl of Nirvana said that the band felt they had "made it" after Yankovic recorded "Smells Like Nirvana", a parody of the grunge band's smash hit, "Smells Like Teen Spirit".[7] On his Behind the Music special, Yankovic stated that when he called Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain to ask if he could parody the song, Cobain gave him permission, then paused and asked, "Um... it's not gonna be about food, is it?" Yankovic responded with, "No, it'll be about how no one can understand your lyrics." According to members of Nirvana interviewed for Behind the Music, when they saw the video of the song, they laughed hysterically. Additionally, Cobain described Yankovic as "a musical genius".

 

[Why would you do that?]

As someone who has made a Let's Play let me tell you it is in fact a lot of work.

Of course, I know better then to think I can or should make any money off it.

That really depends on the content and the player, of course.

...

I see. I suppose it was wrong of me to downplay the amount of effort required to create a quality one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frVgHYwd8wM

No effort whatsoever.

I never said it took zero effort, just little. It was a poor choice of words because "little" could mean different things depending on the metric you use, but I was thinking more along these lines.

 

[PataHikari]

I just read the description you put in the post. Can you expand in how this applies to the let's play?.

A recording of a video game is absolutely the original game being "transformed, or adapted."

 

[borghe]

Not true at all. From Yankovic's Wikipedia page:

yeah, I edited it. It was Lady GaGa.. my bad. The point is that he seeks approval as a courtesy and to not ruffle feathers... but in today's world... who knows if a particular part is copyrighted, and deemed to not fall within parody or not..

A recording of a video game is absolutely the original game being "transformed, or adapted."

umm.. in which way? It's being presented verbatim as it was created. Reading a book aloud in a funny accent or different language isn't transformative, so how would presenting a game as it was created be so?

I think some of you have no idea what transformative means in terms of IP rights. Transformative means that while there may be some similarities there to a copyrighted work, there are changes and differences enough for the work in question to bare little or virtually no resemblance to the original work.

 

[wrowa]

Let's Plays are free advertising for the game. Monetizing a Let's Play is an incentive -- and regularly the only reason -- to invest the time it takes to produce and release free advertising for the game. Nintendo is clamping down on free advertising for their own games.

This is one of those rare instance where "stupid" is exactly the right word to use.

Advertising? How exactly is showing the complete game "advertising"? Why would I buy a new Zelda once I know all of the world, all of the puzzles, all of the bosses and all of the story? Why would I buy Luigi's Mansion 2 when I've already seen all of the mansions, the ghosts and the solution to every puzzle? Why would I buy any story focused game once I already know all of the story?

Calling Let's Plays advertising is a blank statement that frankly doesn't make much sense. It's true for certain games, sure. Minecraft is the obvious example. Being a huge sandbox with unlimited possibilites, no Let's Play can recreate the experience you'd have playing the game yourself. However, despite being interactive the majority of all games get their appeal due to simple things that are quite simple lost once you've already seen them. There's no reason to play, say, Monkey Island once you've already seen all of the dialogues and the solutions to the puzzles. Video games are interactive, but most really only offer you one or two solutions to any given problem -- once you know most games usually aren't a lot of fun to play anymore.

Of course, it's possible that people see the first parts of an LP and realize that they'd rather play the game themselves. But that doesn't stop video creators to stop uploading the rest of the game -- and I honestly do not understand why some YouTube dude is more entitled to make money with a game than the people who created it. I'm not saying that no effort is needed in order to make a LP; however, it's absolutely miniscule compared to the effort needed to develop a game.

There's actually a case to be made that LPs might actually hurt the sales of some games. In that case, you can regard the advertising money the publisher receives as a means of compensation.

In any case, I think Let's Plays are quite a shady business and no one should feel entitled to make money by showing the whole product of someone else.

It is sad, however, that content ID can't distinguish between Let's Plays and other videos showing the games. There are a lot of great videos that are actually "fair use" and don't show entire games that earn all the money they can get. However, I don't think LPs belong to that.

The point is the game get's exposition. If the "let's player" is charismatic he tends to do a fantastic job portraying the game. Is just human nature, i don't need back up data to be pretty sure of this types of things.

That's a mood point if the creator of the game never asked for your exposition. Sure, I could make a Let's Read and read the newest Dan Brown for all the world to hear. I'd even make a snarky comment from time to time to make fun of Brown's writing. But I doubt the author or his publisher would be very grateful for that kind of exposition.

 

[Clockwork5]

This is not true.

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

All registration is required for in the US for is for statutory damages based on US copyright law. However you are still eligible for incurred damages and still given copyright upon publication or notice without registration.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

from copyright.gov

It seems to me that any legal action requires registration... and thus there is very little protection for unregistered original works. Am I mistaken?

And again, on the Weird Al topic, he is still required to pay royalties.

 

[PataHikari]

umm.. in which way? It's being presented verbatim as it was created. Reading a book aloud in a funny accent or different language isn't transformative, so how would presenting a game as it was created be so?

Because you're not presenting a game as it's created.

Video games are meant to be played, a static recording of the game is absolutely different then its original intention.

 

[FallingEdge]

Advertising? How exactly is showing the complete game "advertising"? Why would I buy a new Zelda once I know all of the world, all of the puzzles, all of the bosses and all of the story? Why would I buy Luigi's Mansion 2 when I've already seen all of the mansions, the ghosts and the solution to every puzzle? Why would I buy any story focused game once I already know all of the story?

Calling Let's Plays advertising is a blank statement that frankly doesn't make much sense. It's true for certain games, sure. Minecraft is the obvious example. Being a huge sandbox with unlimited possibilites, no Let's Play can recreate the experience you'd have playing the game yourself. However, despite being interactive the majority of all games get their appeal due to simple things that are quite simple lost once you've already seen them. There's no reason to play, say, Monkey Island once you've already seen all of the dialogues and the solutions to the puzzles. Video games are interactive, but most really only offer you one or two solutions to any given problem -- once you know most games usually aren't a lot of fun to play anymore.

Of course, it's possible that people see the first parts of an LP and realize that they'd rather play the game themselves. But that doesn't stop video creators to stop uploading the rest of the game -- and I honestly do not understand why some YouTube dude is more entitled to make money with a game than the people who created it. I'm not saying that no effort is needed in order to make a LP; however, it's absolutely miniscule compared to the effort needed to develop a game.

There's actually a case to be made that LPs might actually hurt the sales of some games. In that case, you can regard the advertising money the publisher receives as a means of compensation.

In any case, I think Let's Plays are quite a shady business and no one should feel entitled to make money by showing the whole product of someone else.

It is sad, however, that content ID can't distinguish between Let's Plays and other videos showing the games. There are a lot of great videos that are actually "fair use" and don't show entire games that earn all the money they can get. However, I don't think LPs belong to that.

Didn't the "LP" done by Giant Bomb for Persona 4 and Deadly Premonition help increase sales for those games?

 

[Mr. Enigma]

Didn't the "LP" done by Giant Bomb for Persona 4 and Deadly Premonition help increase sales for those games?

Bingo. She doesn't represent everyone, but my girlfriend bought Persona 4 strictly because of Giant Bomb playing it. A LOT of people bought Deadly Premonition because of them too.

 

[Jake Tower]

Advertising? How exactly is showing the complete game "advertising"? Why would I buy a new Zelda once I know all of the world, all of the puzzles, all of the bosses and all of the story? Why would I buy Luigi's Mansion 2 when I've already seen all of the mansions, the ghosts and the solution to every puzzle? Why would I buy any story focused game once I already know all of the story?

Nintendo used to publish complete photos of entire levels in games, complete with every power up, enemy, and secret item location in Nintendo Power. This kept the Nintendo Entertainment System and the games licensed for it from becoming a financial success, and is just a footnote in video game history.

The first issue had complete maps of The Legend of Zelda and Metroid. Those games never had a chance at commercial success since their contents were spoiled.

 

[Raist]

If you didn't create it, it's not yours. Simple.

If you had a little dongle that went between your controller and the console/PC while you were playing the game, and it recorded your inputs, that input string would belong to you. If you made commentary over a game video, the commentary would belong to you.

Yes, I know this....

What I'm getting at this, people are making money out of videos they made of their gameplay. They're not making a copy of the game per se. Again, it's not directly comparable to traditional copyright stuff. They didn't create the game no, but they for sure created the gameplay you're watching.

 

[Harlock]

Good article from Chris Kholer. If is fair use or not is pointless.

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2013/05/nintendo-youtube-lets-play/

So, then: Is the money Nintendo makes from players who buy their games after seeing them on these popular shows more or less than the amount it will make off revenue from these ads? Is the ad revenue worth the loss of support from extremely influential consumers — not just now, but on into the future as the influence of these new types of game videos continues to grow?

 

[Chris R]

It's like Nintendo is doing everything wrong recently... Why get rid of free publicity?

 

[eternalb]

Nintendo used to publish complete photos of entire levels in games, complete with every power up, enemy, and secret item location in Nintendo Power. This kept the Nintendo Entertainment System and the games licensed for it from becoming a financial success, and is just a footnote in video game history.

This is awesome.

 

[PataHikari]

It's like Nintendo is doing everything wrong recently... Why get rid of free publicity?

They're not.

They're saying that people can't make money off their games.