Support NeoGAF

[Starwolf_UK]

At least they didn't do a SEGA...

Wouldn't a smarter prospect be partnering with big LPers to get them freebies...it would sweeten the content ID deal...well that is unless its like "oh we've taken your ad revenue because we own the game you show".

 

[wrowa]

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.

A guide and a video showing you everything are two completely different things.

 

[PataHikari]

Personally I eagerly await every company doing this so we can kill off doing Let's Plays for profit.

 

[JoeM86]

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

I'm really not sure why people keep thinking that Nintendo are blocking the videos...

 

[Orayn]

Personally I eagerly await every company doing this so we can kill off doing Let's Plays for profit.

It'll still be entirely possible through partner networks unless publishers change their minds about that too.

I'm really not sure why people keep thinking that Nintendo are blocking the videos...

Because it's page 14 (100ppp) and people still aren't reading the fucking OP.

 

[BasilZero]

At least they didn't do a SEGA...

Wouldn't a smarter prospect be partnering with big LPers to get them freebies...it would sweeten the content ID deal...well that is unless its like "oh we've taken your ad revenue because we own the game you show".

Do SEGA still take down channels or videos?

 

[Chris R]

I'm really not sure why people keep thinking that Nintendo are blocking the videos...

When the people who make LP videos or other videos that end up on Youtube say that they will not be playing Nintendo games in the future they are losing possible game exposure, even if they aren't taking down anything.

 

[snap0212]

Personally I eagerly await every company doing this so we can kill off doing Let's Plays for profit.

The for profit aspect doesn't even have to be killed. There's nothing wrong with making money off of it... provided everyone has made sure that they're not breaking any rules whatsoever.

If you're in it for the business then treat it like a business and be professional. That simply includes getting permissions for all kinds of things, and if you happen to be a YouTuber then you better have full permission for whatever content you're using in your videos.

 

[PataHikari]

When the people who make LP videos or other videos that end up on Youtube say that they will not be playing Nintendo games in the future they are losing possible game exposure, even if they aren't taking down anything.

Except that there are tons of people who do Let's Plays not expecting any money.

 

[Harlock]

Personally I eagerly await every company doing this so we can kill off doing Let's Plays for profit.

Pata, you don´t have jesus in the heart. Cheer up, boy.

 

[wrowa]

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

Is there a source for this except of the people saying they bought the game because of it? Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, since we don't know how many people didn't buy it because of it.

I'm sure it helped Deadly Premonition, though. Mostly because it's a special case of being a game no one had on the radar when it released -- actually, I'd go as far as saying that most people didn't even understand that it's supposed to the Twin Peak-ish at first.

Wasn't Atlus taking down Let's Plays of Persona 4 Arena at the time of its release? Not sure why they would do that if they felt that P4's sales got a boost due to Let's Plays.

 

[snap0212]

Except that there are tons of people who do Let's Plays not expecting any money.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=191

Not sure if it's visible if you're not a member but there's some amazing stuff to be found.

 

[Refreshment.01]

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

While i must admit most of it goes above my head, thanks for pointing me out in how it's infringe law.

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.

And no... I do understand the "legality" favors Nintendo, even when writing my first post of the thread. And thanks to Patahikari for pointing exactly what is what XD

And no, because you should center your examples in videogames (interactive media), where the player is a more involved part of the equation.

That many people here are right about the "legal" implications? Absolutly! I won't there to even try to contradict people more versed in this matters than i will ever be. But there are times when is better to be practical and let things slide. This was and still is my main point.

So from my POV, as a consumer, Dickhead^2 on Nintendo's part. F*cking with the community for pennies.

 

[vikingvessel]

Or, maybe he could be more schrewd in a business sense and not do something for free if he's going to be sore about it later.

Isn't that what Nintendo is taking a majority of the heat for? Sure, they probably could afford to look the other way, but they are within their rights to interrupt the outside monetization on youtube. Once criticism extends beyond they don't need to, it sounds like a little too much heart is being put into it.

Early in the thread, I believe someone mentioned that Valve & Blizzard encourage LPs. Valve seems to be alright with leaving a little revenue on the table for the sake of the big picture over the long haul, so I am not surprised. If anything, I am surprised it took Nintendo this long (huge N fan forever, no bash) to get involved; yet they still could be coming down so much harder than they have. I think they handled themselves well in a tight spot.

 

[borghe]

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?

yes.. per the Berne convention, copyright is awarded upon publication in all participating countries. copyright BY DEFAULT means legal claim.

What registration does in the US is as I stated. There are LAWS in the US around copyright. They are the laws you see mentioned at the beginning of every DVD. In these laws are statutory fines to be assessed on people in violation of copyright. You are only eligible to receive THOSE fines for a registered copyright. HOWEVER, you STILL have the legal right to sue someone over violation and received compensatory damages without registration. What you DON'T have right to do without registration is sue and say "well the law says I'm entitled to $10,000 per infringement"

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

He is not NECESSARILY required to. Under parody fair use laws, he is technically not required to. But it goes back to what I was saying. In just a single song, there are potentially so many copyrights present these days that you are asking for trouble by just assuming it will all be protected under parody. IF YOU CAN make nice with the original copyright holder(s) ahead of time, it is greatly in your best interest to do so.

edit - apparently 2 Live Crew is another example with Pretty Woman.. It went to court, a judge deemed it parody, things dragged on, so eventually they just licensed the song from Roy Orbison.

 

[Oersted]

When the people who make LP videos or other videos that end up on Youtube say that they will not be playing Nintendo games in the future they are losing possible game exposure, even if they aren't taking down anything.

That is a interesting way to not answer his question.

Btw: Do we know any impact on MS LPs after they did the exact same thing?

 

[Chris R]

That is a interesting way to not answer his question.

Btw: Do we know any impact on MS LPs after they did the exact same thing?

Where did I ever say Nintendo was taking down videos?

 

[Firestorm]

So to those white knighting for Nintendo: My friends and I run a fansite for a Nintendo IP. Should 100% of our AdSense revenue go to Nintendo?

 

[slabrock]

Funny that someone mentioned enter sandman; metallica supposedly stole the riff from another band.

 

[Refreshment.01]

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

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

Exactly what im saying.

Do i get a videogame journalist batch for stating what common sense dictates?

They're not.

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

And thus making some influential guys lose incentive about runing their games. For a few pennies.

And this puts down Wrowa point.

Is there a source for this except of the people saying they bought the game because of it? Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, since we don't know how many people didn't buy it because of it.

I'm sure it helped Deadly Premonition, though. Mostly because it's a special case of being a game no one had on the radar when it released -- actually, I'd go as far as saying that most people didn't even understand that it's supposed to the Twin Peak-ish at first.

Wasn't Atlus taking down Let's Plays of Persona 4 Arena at the time of its release? Not sure why they would do that if they felt that P4's sales got a boost due to Let's Plays.

Nintendo is letting lets plays so they dont feel much danger from them. If this type of sharing was cutting into their profits then they'll probably even sue XD

Nintendo should take a page from Valve in terms of community relations? Yes, the TOS has us by the balls but everyone including NIntendo has that.

 

[jgwhiteus]

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.

And... Nintendo owned and received revenues from Nintendo Power. If Nintendo Power had been an independent publication that published the game's content without authorization, Nintendo would have been within its rights to shut it down.

But in this case, they didn't demand LP'ers take the videos down because they thought it would hurt their sales. They asked that they receive the revenues from any monetization efforts (unless the LP'ers have prior permission). So maybe Nintendo actually agrees with you that LP videos have a beneficial advertising effect for games. But it's their choice about whether to allow them, or to ask for any revenues from their content.

Let's be honest - people will still continue making LP videos. They will still continue to make LP videos about Nintendo games. The ones who are affected by this are those who signed up for Youtube's partner program to make money (despite its clear restrictions on showing video game footage without permission), and suddenly find they have to request permission if they want to continue getting paid for playing through Nintendo games (just like Microsoft and Sony have previously asserted their rights; now Nintendo is closing the loop).

Will this stop gamers who post LP videos for fun and enjoyment? No. Will this stop professional LP'ers who hope to make money? Probably more than a few will LP other games for the time being, or will only LP select popular Nintendo titles and give up the ad revenue if their audiences are interested and they want to keep their subscription base up. Is Nintendo going to be hurt or helped in its advertising efforts by losing that section of "professional" LP'ers? Maybe a little, but I'm not sure to any significant degree, given the usual volume of their sales worldwide and their customer demographics (like, how many 10-year old Japanese 3DS owners are breathlessly waiting for a Pokemon LP to decide whether to buy the game?). And Nintendo has never really depended that much on "core" or niche audiences with its current offerings.

And in taking a longer view, they're also asserting their rights against further infringement down the line from others. The danger of letting stuff like this go unchecked is that people get so used to it they think all types of violations "must be okay" and you run into a slippery slope problem. So yeah, I see the point about how this might do some damage in the short term, but it's hard to say whether in the long view (and Nintendo's been around a long time), it'll hurt rather than help.

 

[Htown]

So to those white knighting for Nintendo: My friends and I run a fansite for a Nintendo IP. Should 100% of our AdSense revenue go to Nintendo?

You're right, that's totally what everyone is saying. No straw men around here.

 

[eternalb]

And... Nintendo owned and received revenues from Nintendo Power. If Nintendo Power had been an independent publication that published the game's content without authorization, Nintendo would have been within its rights to shut it down.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the book Game Over mentions that Nintendo lost money on Nintendo Power, and instead viewed it as a marketing expense.

 

[borghe]

So to those white knighting for Nintendo: My friends and I run a fansite for a Nintendo IP. Should 100% of our AdSense revenue go to Nintendo?

a) it is nowhere near that cut and dried
b) most major companies have terms and stuff out there for fansites the basically serve as "operate under these terms and we have no problem with you"
c) if any of the material on your site is copyrighted and used outside of the extent of Fair Use... then those copyright holders are within right to ask you to remove it or use it within terms agreed upon between you and them. If those terms are "100% of your adsense revenue", then those are the terms you agree to. If you don't agree to them, and you are outside of Fair Use, then your only other recourse is to remove the material.

That you don't know any of this and yet run a fansite that generates revenue is pretty dangerous and naive you realize.

 

[Jake Tower]

And... Nintendo owned and received revenues from Nintendo Power. If Nintendo Power had been an independent publication that published the game's content without authorization, Nintendo would have been within its rights to shut it down.

I'm talking about spoiling the contents of the game as a separate issue. The claim has been made in this thread that LP act as marketing for games, with the counter argument that spoiling the whole game negates the reason to buy and play the game, which must be true because the NES games spoiled in Nintendo Power were commercial failures.

 

[borghe]

I'm talking about spoiling the contents of the game as a separate issue. The claim has been made in this thread that LP act as marketing for games, with the counter argument that spoiling the whole game negates the reason to buy and play the game, which must be true because the NES games spoiled in Nintendo Power were commercial failures.

this goes back to what I was saying.. the problem with arguing it as advertising or promotion is that Nintendo has no creative control over its creation. That's a pretty big red flag right there. The fact that it's being created primarily to generate revenue (as evidenced by "then I won't make them with their games any more") is the second big red flag. Given those two points, I'm thinking advertising/promotion is a hard thing to argue from a "I can't believe they are giving all of that up!!!"

 

[wrowa]

While i must admit most of it goes above my head, thanks for pointing me out in how it's infringe law.

And no... I do understand the "legality" favors Nintendo, even when writing my first post of the thread. And thanks to Patahikari for pointing exactly what is what XD

And no, because you should center your examples in videogames (interactive media), where the player is a more involved part of the equation.

That many people here are right about the "legal" implications? Absolutly! I won't there to even try to contradict people more versed in this matters than i will ever be. But there are times when is better to be practical and let things slide. This was and still is my main point.

So from my POV, as a consumer, Dickhead^2 on Nintendo's part. F*cking with the community for pennies.

Like I said in my post, I don't think the interactive part really means a lot on its own. Once you've already seen someone playing the game from start to fnish, once you already know all there is to see and the solution to everything, playing a game usually isn't very fun anymore.

You can make the case that people who watch the entirety of a Let's Play are exactly the kind of people who wouldn't buy your game in the first place -- and you are likely right. But I still don't think that it justifies making money off something someone else spend millions upon millions to develop.

I don't have a problem with LPs per se, don't get me wrong. But even without making money with them, they are kind of a gray area and actually making money with it strikes me as wrong. I don't agree with Nintendo taking all of the money, however. Ideally the money would be shared between both parties -- I wonder if YouTube's policies allow for such a thing?

So to those white knighting for Nintendo: My friends and I run a fansite for a Nintendo IP. Should 100% of our AdSense revenue go to Nintendo?

You probably have editorial content that doesn't involve making a video from Nintendo's entire games. It really is that specific part of showing games in their entirety I'm having issues with.

 

[Jake Tower]

this goes back to what I was saying.. the problem with arguing it as advertising or promotion is that Nintendo has no creative control over its creation. That's a pretty big red flag right there.

Then why does Nintendo (and other companies) submit copies of new games to media outlets for review?

 

[Refreshment.01]

And... Nintendo owned and received revenues from Nintendo Power. If Nintendo Power had been an independent publication that published the game's content without authorization, Nintendo would have been within its rights to shut it down.

But in this case, they didn't demand LP'ers take the videos down because they thought it would hurt their sales. They asked that they receive the revenues from any monetization efforts (unless the LP'ers have prior permission). So maybe Nintendo actually agrees with you that LP videos have a beneficial advertising effect for games. But it's their choice about whether to allow them, or to ask for any revenues from their content.

Let's be honest - people will still continue making LP videos. They will still continue to make LP videos about Nintendo games. The ones who are affected by this are those who signed up for Youtube's partner program to make money (despite its clear restrictions on showing video game footage without permission), and suddenly find they have to request permission if they want to continue getting paid for playing through Nintendo games (just like Microsoft and Sony have previously asserted their rights; now Nintendo is closing the loop).

Will this stop gamers who post LP videos for fun and enjoyment? No. Will this stop professional LP'ers who hope to make money? Probably more than a few will LP other games for the time being, or will only LP select popular Nintendo titles and give up the ad revenue if their audiences are interested and they want to keep their subscription base up. Is Nintendo going to be hurt or helped in its advertising efforts by losing that section of "professional" LP'ers? Maybe a little, but I'm not sure to any significant degree, given the usual volume of their sales worldwide and their customer demographics (like, how many 10-year old Japanese 3DS owners are breathlessly waiting for a Pokemon LP to decide whether to buy the game?). And Nintendo has never really depended that much on "core" or niche audiences with its current offerings.

And in taking a longer view, they're also asserting their rights against further infringement down the line from others. The danger of letting stuff like this go unchecked is that people get so used to it they think all types of violations "must be okay" and you run into a slippery slope problem. So yeah, I see the point about how this might do some damage in the short term, but it's hard to say whether in the long view (and Nintendo's been around a long time), it'll hurt rather than help.

Fantastic post.

Yet i don't think "let's palys" would have serious implications for then down the line. What they should be working on is provide an environment controlled by them to allow this type of content, maybe with some extra incentives for the players. Like one of it's competitors is about to beat them to it, it looks like.

Like I said in my post, I don't think the interactive part really means a lot on its own. Once you've already seen someone playing the game from start to fnish, once you already know all there is to see and the solution to everything, playing a game usually isn't very fun anymore.

You can make the case that people who watch the entirety of a Let's Play are exactly the kind of people who wouldn't buy your game in the first place -- and you are likely right. But I still don't think that it justifies making money off something someone else spend millions upon millions to develop.

I don't have a problem with LPs per se, don't get me wrong. But even without making money with them, they are kind of a gray area and actually making money with it strikes me as wrong. I don't agree with Nintendo taking all of the money, however. Ideally the money would be shared between both parties -- I wonder if YouTube's policies allow for such a thing?



You probably have editorial content that doesn't involve making a video from Nintendo's entire games. It really is that specific part of showing games in their entirety I'm having issues with.

Wrowa, like i said in a previous post. Your point loses traction when we see that Nintendo is not taking down the "let's play", they are blocking the user from having advertisment revenue. They are legally entitled to it, i do get it.

But this is just causing some people to be upset for not much compensation. So we are better off as we were, withouth this. What NIntendo should be doing is creating positive vibes, no more BS.

 

[Jake Tower]

So maybe Nintendo actually agrees with you that LP videos have a beneficial advertising effect for games.

So isn't it reasonable for marketers to make money off their efforts? And why is it reasonable for Nintendo to 'reverse polarity' and suck up the monetization of the commentary that they do not own?

 

[borghe]

Then why does Nintendo (and other companies) submit copies of new games to media outlets for review?

Reviews (and excerpts used in reviews) are covered under fair use.

Nintendo provides copies for promotion, but those copies come with their own agreements (explicit or implied). However that falls outside of copyright. Technically Nintendo has "control" over the content created with those promotional copies............ and we HAVE seen such douchey things in the past as companies no longer sending (or threatening to no longer send) review copies in retaliation for poor reviews, etc.

However Fair Use dictates that sites that were (unfairly) retaliated against in such a manner are still within right to go out and buy their own copies which they can then create reviews from.

Anyway.. yeah, reviews are covered under fair use.. and much like most basic copyrights, have been covered under such for hundred(s) of years.

 

[Velcro Fly]

I'm really worried about YouTube sites like GameXplain that always seem to have new trailers and always have interesting pieces of info. I know they have media credentials and get review copies of games and get invited to media events so I imagine they are going to be just fine. But who knows.

 

[wrowa]

Wrowa, like i said in a previous post. Your point loses traction when we see that Nintendo is not taking down the "let's play", they are blocking the user from having advertisment revenue. They are legally entitled to it, i do get it.

So? Not sure what your point is. I never said that Nintendo takes down the videos, that's never been part of my point.

 

[Firestorm]

You probably have editorial content that doesn't involve making a video from Nintendo's entire games. It really is that specific part of showing games in their entirety I'm having issues with.

We do. We also have multiplayer gameplay videos of our players that Nintendo might Content ID match. I'm sorry, but video games are not movies. That's why they're video games. A video of a game is not the same as a movie. A movie plays out the same no matter how many times you view it. A video game does not. That's why people follow specific LPers.

I am not a Let's Player. I don't follow Let's Plays because I don't find them very interesting. However, I do have friends who do it. It will definitely cut down on their LPing depending on how Nintendo handles licenses. Not merely as a boycott, but because now they need to go and find supplemental income to pay the bills. This creates fewer video's about Nintendo products and less exposure.

 

[jgwhiteus]

I'm talking about spoiling the contents of the game as a separate issue. The claim has been made in this thread that LP act as marketing for games, with the counter argument that spoiling the whole game negates the reason to buy and play the game, which must be true because the NES games spoiled in Nintendo Power were commercial failures.

Well, even Nintendo Power only spoiled things up to a point, to get you interested. I distinctly remember the issue on Final Fantasy IV / II (I still have my copy), which walked you through the first few hours, then teased you about what the rest of the game was about. Great marketing. I'm sure there were games they went all the way through, but in all cases it was their choice about what to reveal and what not to reveal to get people interested in that particular game.

And even if Nintendo took a loss on Nintendo power, subscription revenues went to them to help soften the loss, and they got a database of loyal players / subscribers they could push other products to, etc. - which goes to the point that they were the owners of the iP and could market it as they chose. With LP videos using their content, Nintendo gets no data / connection to viewers and subscribers, and no revenues to offset the loss they take, and no control over what gets "spoiled" and what doesn't.

But even then, they haven't been taking down LP's, just asking for ad revenues unless there's a prior arrangement already in place (e.g. with a gaming review site, or a more professional outfit). If there are professional LPers who've been making significant ad revenue from Nintendo games - well, I honestly don't have much sympathy for them. It's time to finally grow up and learn what professionals in other media already knew - you can't use other people's content for free. Like, if you've been making 6 figures up until now, congratulations - now it's time to be introduced to "real" business.

 

[snap0212]

We do. We also have multiplayer gameplay videos of our players that Nintendo might Content ID match. I'm sorry, but video games are not movies. That's why they're video games. A video of a game is not the same as a movie. A movie plays out the same no matter how many times you view it. A video game does not. That's why people follow specific LPers.

I am not a Let's Player. I don't follow Let's Plays because I don't find them very interesting. However, I do have friends who do it. It will definitely cut down on their LPing depending on how Nintendo handles licenses. Not merely as a boycott, but because now they need to go and find supplemental income to pay the bills. This creates fewer video's about Nintendo products and less exposure.

If you're a fan site then it's pretty easy to find out what you can and can't do. Just contact PR, they'll let you know.

The thing is, though... it doesn't matter at all in any way what you, me or anyone thinks a game is or if you consider it to not be a movie or whatever. YouTube's rules are straight forward and people have agreed to them. They're now being bitten in the ass because they've assumed their actions being fine when they weren't to begin with. They should have covered their asses right from the start and they didn't do that. If your friends didn't get permission then this is probably a wake-up call for them. They should go out there and get written permission from the people who publish the games they want to show. Are people afraid of being turned down or why do they choose to not play by the rules? I don't get it.

 

[Starwolf_UK]

Do SEGA still take down channels or videos?

They've stopped since March...in you're American or European at least.

But as the comments point out the black marks they put on your account won't go away (especially when they lead to outright removal of account). Thats what I don't like about youtube, its too easy to claim copyright (even accidentally) and fraudsters reel the money in. It happens a lot to NASA footage.

 

[Game Guru]

Then why does Nintendo (and other companies) submit copies of new games to media outlets for review?

Because they can't just stop people from reviewing their games just like they can't really stop people from LPing them, and that's the same for any company. However, those media outlets do get approval from Nintendo hence why Nintendo sends them games to review rather than them buying the games themselves for $60. Nintendo Power, being owned by Nintendo, is obviously going to have Nintendo's approval as well.

People have pointed out that Nintendo is actually being the most reasonable compared to Sony, Microsoft and Sega here in that they aren't doing takedown notices.

 

[eternalb]

Well, even Nintendo Power only spoiled things up to a point, to get you interested.

Originally, every quarterly issue of Nintendo Power was a full guide for the first year or two, IIRC.

 

[M3d10n]

So isn't it reasonable for marketers to make money off their efforts? And why is it reasonable for Nintendo to 'reverse polarity' and suck up the monetization of the commentary that they do not own?

But you can make money, you just need permission. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Jake Tower]

But you can make money, you just need permission. Why is that so hard to understand?

Why can Nintendo monetize the commentary they do not own without permission?

 

[Refreshment.01]

So? Not sure what your point is. I never said that Nintendo takes down the videos, that's never been part of my point.

Im talking about posts like thse:
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.

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.

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

Point is clear friend, if Nintendo had evidence that a "let's play" has a negative impact on sales they wouldn't allow it in any way. On the other hand this supports my case that these type of videos could be considered advertisement.

Understand now? The pennies they get from some advertisement on a lets play, wouldn't compensate the "loss of sales" (if it was the case in the first place) since the popular videos are in the 1000's of individual views.

I'd think it's more of a "if anyone should profit from this then it's us", which I'd understand.

I mean, I'm willing to do certain stuff for free like lend my car to a friend for free. If he then goes on and drives people around and makes money off of it then I'd be pretty pissed as well.

There's no logic in what you say. If there was a clear case of a "lost software sale" then they won't let the practice to take place, simple as that.

 

[jgwhiteus]

Why can Nintendo monetize the commentary they do not own without permission?

It's been explained several times - because the videos are monetized using content they do own, and are infringing / derivative. You may not like the answer, but that's pretty much how it works.

 

[Cynar]

So to those white knighting for Nintendo: My friends and I run a fansite for a Nintendo IP. Should 100% of our AdSense revenue go to Nintendo?

According to many in this thread, yes. Kinda silly, probably the same group that hates used games and consumer rights.

 

[snap0212]

Point is clear friend, if Nintendo had evidence that a "let's play" has a negative impact on sales they wouldn't allow it in any way. On the other hand this supports my case that these type of videos could be considered advertisement.

Understand now? The pennies they get from some advertisement on a lets play, wouldn't compensate the "loss of sales" (if it was the case in the first place) since the popular videos are in the 1000's of individual views.

I'd think it's more of a "if anyone should profit from this then it's us", which I'd understand.

I mean, I'm willing to do certain stuff for free like lend my car to a friend for free. If he then goes on and drives people around and makes money off of it then I'd be pretty pissed as well.

According to many in this thread, yes. Kinda silly, probably the same group that hates used games and consumer rights.

Many in this Thread? Name names, please.

 

[justjim89]

Why can Nintendo monetize the commentary they do not own without permission?

Because the commentary is negligible without the gameplay? How about then the LPers put up commentary tracks over a blank video, then monetize it. They're well within their rights to do so, and since the commentary itself is such a unique work I'm sure it will stand up on its own without context.

 

[Refreshment.01]

According to many in this thread, yes. Kinda silly, probably the same group that hates used games and consumer rights.

This is what i find really weird in the thread.

For example, if im saying BS like, "Nintendo does not have legal right to do this" and some people come and set the record straight. That's perfect and educative for all involved.

But people defending the practice and Nintendo standing from the consumer POV? Getting some ill will for some pennies in an activity that benefits everyone involved? To the extreme of saying stuff like "playing games shouldn't be a source of income for a player". Just incredible.

Why just not be practical about it? And let everyone involved get something out of it.

 

[Oersted]

According to many in this thread, yes. Kinda silly, probably the same group that hates used games and consumer rights.

Your avatar doesn´t corrospondend well with your knowledge of the law. Not at all.

 

[Clockwork5]

They dont own the game, they dont own the website, they have given YouTube the license to determine if their video is able to be monetized, they are using someone elses IP and making profit. They are more than welcome to attempt to monetize their vocal track with an original video that does not infringe on Nintendo's copyrights, but even so YouTube does not have the obligation to enable monetization.

Like I said, I do it for fun, my video's have been tagged, i understand and i dont care because I have no intention of monetizing these videos. I try not to break the law.

These LPers need to get a real job, or get permission from the publishers.

 

[Htown]

Why can Nintendo monetize the commentary they do not own without permission?

Because uploading it to YouTube grants YouTube a license to use your content however they want. So if YouTube wants to partner with Nintendo to monetize their copyright content with your licensed content, they can.