-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo going after Youtube Let's Play videos
- Thread starter LiK
- Start date
Oh yeah, I really wanted to address this line of thought.
It seems some of you don't understand exactly what the cooyright(s) extend to. The pixel art. The music. The box art. The meshes. The textures. And most importantly to what we are talking about here, the binary code. Some of
You insist that the gameplay of an individual session is transformative. Here is the problem with this argument. The gameplay happens based on the instructions as executed by the code. You are pressing buttons on the controller, which are then passed to the game, which then makes decisions based on the engine and creates output that goes to the TV. You aren't "making Mario jump". You are pressing buttons on a controller which are then used as input by copyrighted binary code to do something with. What it ends up outputting is likewise all copyrighted material. There is nothing you ever create because everything outputted to the screen is all determined by the code. Now this won't 100% cover all cases, especially where you actually DO create content (importing photos, recorded samples, maps/levels, RPG Maker, etc), but for the purpose of what we are talking about here, the LPer never creates anything with the game. And without creation it can't be transformative.
Now to go back to your comparison to movies. We are not required to watch the same movie every time. We can chapter skip, rearrange chapters, edit our own cuts, etc. aka change our inputs. but in almost none of those cases would it ever be considered transformative. Simply rearranging, changing inputs, is not legally conaidered creation. I it were then copyright wouldn't extend to remixes or different musical arrangements.
No, two people playing the same game might not play it through the same way, but the code interpreting their inputs and and the material from which it creates output from ARE the same for both players, and ARE copyrighted. Because what they are doing isn't actually changing the copyrighted MATERIAL, there is no way it can be considered transformative.
Velcro Fly
Member
Pretty much confirmed that GameXplain is having to deal with this too. They do reviews, previews, speculation, etc on YouTube. Ugh.
Refreshment.01
Member
Now you are confusing me a bit. But really interesting. Either your profession lays in the legal realm, or you are very smart or probably both. As a person, in practical terms, what's your take?
Don't get me wrong, i know you have posted quite a lot but most of what i've seen centers in the legal angle.
Well the good news from this happening is clearly there are issues with YouTube's content id matching. Hopefully google fixes it and doesn't just turn a blind eye.
There are three things going on here.
1. YouTube has a system in place to protect the copyrights of ip owners. By default the system prevents users from monetizing videos containing content they don't hold the copyright to or have permission to use. Previously Nintendo was not a part of this system, now they are.
2. Under this system, people who do not have said permission lose the ability to make money on videos that are caught by the service.
3. Also under this system, some people who DO have said permission are now seeing their videos getting ads pulled from them thus losing that revenue.
Point 1 just is what it is. Everybody is operating within their rights and under all applicable agreements.
Point 2 is similarly everyone operating under their agreements. The channel owners don't like it, but it's part of the service they agreed to. Right or wrong doesn't exist.
Point 3 is wrong and needs to be fixed. Content match isn't supposed to take effect if the channel has permission.
As for my thoughts on it. I don't really see it as a cruel move by Nintendo. Just like the music artist has a right to put in a link/ad to buy their song that someone used in a video, game publishers should have the right to put links/ads to buy their games in videos that make extensive use of that game. But at this point we are honestly just talking about YouTube policy. Now if it were Nintendo pulling videos, I would probably morally side a little more with the uploaders even though Nintendo would still be legally entitled.
Edit - really the only place copyright even comes into play in all of this is simply that Nintendo has registered with Youtube as owning the copyrights, and because of that it's affecting various YouTube channels. But what's actually happening isn't a legal or copyright issue, it's a YouTube policy issue.
Refreshment.01
Member
Really apreciate how clearly you explained everything. (^_^)/
The bolded goes against what a lo of people in this thread believe, in legal terms that is (regarding "transformation" and "IP infringment"). In my case, i must admit that last part makes me even more unpleasent with NIntendo's decision.
It would be cool if Nintendo was doing this to get some awareness going about the issue just to later do a 180, so everyone involved would be thankful. And those of us critizing now would apreciate the gesture. Yet, penny pinching always get the worst out of this company.
BasilZero
Member
That is fantastic. The one good thing to come of this
Jake Tower
Banned
Perfect.
KojiKnight
Member
I most definitely Lol'ed.
Knux-Future
Banned
why is this thread so long.
I think this is reasonable.
I think this is reasonable.
Yo that's not true. The whole reason Nintendo has any sway over these vids in the first place is because they do constitute public use of their IPs. It's just that that issue is so clearly obvious it's kind of irrelevant as an 'issue', since LPers are clearly reusing IP. So in that sense it's more of a policy issue
I thought this was a pretty good explanation of the whole Fair Use issue from an LP group that's had to deal with the issue.
VGA-Nintendo Vs Let's Players
He has said that Nintendo is well within their right to do this, but only to a certain extent.
VGA-Nintendo Vs Let's Players
He has said that Nintendo is well within their right to do this, but only to a certain extent.
Metal Gear?!
Member
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/05/17/w...ng-of-lets-play-videos-mean-for-us-pc-gamers/
"...By now you may’ve heard the ruckus emanating from the console community. Zack Scott, prominent YouTube personality and uploader of Let’s Play videos, revealed that Nintendo had “claimed ownership” of his Nintendo gameplay demonstrations—meaning, basically, that ad revenue from the videos would go to Nintendo rather than Scott himself. It wasn’t an isolated incident; numerous other YouTubers found their videos had also been claimed by the heavyweight publisher.
Unfortunately for us PC folk, Nintendo’s started a possible movement among publishers; Markus “Notch” Persson of Minecraft fame has revealed that he, too, was approached by YouTube and offered a cut of all Minecraft videos’ revenue.
“It was tempting,” said Persson on Twitter. “We almost did it.”
Had the Minecraft team gone through with the deal, what then? Well, not only would the income of Let’s Play YouTubers be threatened, but there’s an argument for the exposure that indie developers would lose as well.
Mike Bithell, developer of Thomas Was Alone, says that it was a Total Biscuit video that propelled his game to success.
“[When it was uploaded] Thomas sold eight times more units than on launch day,” he recounts frankly in a piece for Develop Online. “I was outselling Assassin’s Creed 3 on Steam.”
“Thomas Was Alone would not have been a hit without YouTube. Without the frequent infringement of my copyright, the astonishingly aggressive use of my intellectual property and oftentimes presumptuous use of work comprising years of my life, I wouldn’t be sat right now, at home, taking a break from my work as a full time indie developer.”
So it’s not just about massive publishers who can probably live without the money earned by YouTubers—in the end, widespread adoption of YouTube claiming could hurt smaller developers as well. Let’s Play videos often help us decide whether to buy a game or not, and they can introduce us to wonderful smaller projects and mods as well...."
- Basically small indie developers appreciate all the attention they get because they need it. Nintendo must feel big enough that they don't need their own fans or their goodwill.
"...By now you may’ve heard the ruckus emanating from the console community. Zack Scott, prominent YouTube personality and uploader of Let’s Play videos, revealed that Nintendo had “claimed ownership” of his Nintendo gameplay demonstrations—meaning, basically, that ad revenue from the videos would go to Nintendo rather than Scott himself. It wasn’t an isolated incident; numerous other YouTubers found their videos had also been claimed by the heavyweight publisher.
Unfortunately for us PC folk, Nintendo’s started a possible movement among publishers; Markus “Notch” Persson of Minecraft fame has revealed that he, too, was approached by YouTube and offered a cut of all Minecraft videos’ revenue.
“It was tempting,” said Persson on Twitter. “We almost did it.”
Had the Minecraft team gone through with the deal, what then? Well, not only would the income of Let’s Play YouTubers be threatened, but there’s an argument for the exposure that indie developers would lose as well.
Mike Bithell, developer of Thomas Was Alone, says that it was a Total Biscuit video that propelled his game to success.
“[When it was uploaded] Thomas sold eight times more units than on launch day,” he recounts frankly in a piece for Develop Online. “I was outselling Assassin’s Creed 3 on Steam.”
“Thomas Was Alone would not have been a hit without YouTube. Without the frequent infringement of my copyright, the astonishingly aggressive use of my intellectual property and oftentimes presumptuous use of work comprising years of my life, I wouldn’t be sat right now, at home, taking a break from my work as a full time indie developer.”
So it’s not just about massive publishers who can probably live without the money earned by YouTubers—in the end, widespread adoption of YouTube claiming could hurt smaller developers as well. Let’s Play videos often help us decide whether to buy a game or not, and they can introduce us to wonderful smaller projects and mods as well...."
- Basically small indie developers appreciate all the attention they get because they need it. Nintendo must feel big enough that they don't need their own fans or their goodwill.
Youtube offers the monetization option of putting video ads before, in the middle of (at a certain timestamp), or the end of videos. The small pop up banners are a separate option.
Publishers already did this for quite some time.
And we had a indie dev who said he didn´t earn any money with his game, but a LP´er did.
I thought he didn't by design? And a second indie developer also supported LP's.
The question seems to be as to whether there will be a 'chilling effect' on LPers from using Nintendo-created works, rather than any question of Nintendo takedowns, etc. I still haven't seen it addressed whether Nintendo-mandatory ads displace LP profit or just tack on the end, actually.
I don't see this as a question of Nintendo trying to shut down LPs or bully them out of existence. They're probably well within their rights to completely quash them if they really wanted. This seems like a somewhat hamfisted attempt by Nintendo to deal with unauthorised use of their IP with kid gloves that backfired because it has been interpreted as a threat.
I don't see this as a question of Nintendo trying to shut down LPs or bully them out of existence. They're probably well within their rights to completely quash them if they really wanted. This seems like a somewhat hamfisted attempt by Nintendo to deal with unauthorised use of their IP with kid gloves that backfired because it has been interpreted as a threat.
edwardslane
Member
this is BS.. my son loves watching youtube videos of nintendo games..
He's always asking me to watch mario on youtube he's 3 and half
He's always asking me to watch mario on youtube he's 3 and half
Pretty sure he'll still be able to do that after all this is said and done.
This is mostly about ad revenue, not outright removing the content. Although obviously there is less incentive to upload your videos to YouTube if you're not getting paid.
I can't believe I read the whole thread. Okay, I'm not one of Nintendo's biggest supporters, In fact I don't give a rats ass what happens to the big three, but this is ridiculous.
Vita needs a high priced memory card for some of the games to run: Few pages
Nintendo inconveniences people with buying a power cable: Mutiple threads/Many pages
MS/Sony takes down and causes strikes on you-tubers account: barely mentioned
Nintendo lays it down straight, not risking strikes on peoples accounts: 30 pages.
And you know, I dont think the haters are the ones that balloon these threads, but the people who try to talk some sense into them. So you know what...Just fuck em. You aren't gonna convince them that they are in the wrong. Just let them live in their own little world.
Vita needs a high priced memory card for some of the games to run: Few pages
Nintendo inconveniences people with buying a power cable: Mutiple threads/Many pages
MS/Sony takes down and causes strikes on you-tubers account: barely mentioned
Nintendo lays it down straight, not risking strikes on peoples accounts: 30 pages.
And you know, I dont think the haters are the ones that balloon these threads, but the people who try to talk some sense into them. So you know what...Just fuck em. You aren't gonna convince them that they are in the wrong. Just let them live in their own little world.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
So they're not actually taking these videos down, they're just saying that they want the revenue from people using materials from their games?
... I don't see what's so bad about that.
It's one thing to have a Let's Play, but it's another thing to try to make money out of it.
... I don't see what's so bad about that.
It's one thing to have a Let's Play, but it's another thing to try to make money out of it.
TotalBiscuit Content Patch
Content Patch - May 17th, 2013 - Ep. 085 [Nintendo targets fan-made videos]
Content Patch - May 17th, 2013 - Ep. 085 [Nintendo targets fan-made videos]
Fantastic
jakonovski
Member
TB said it really well.
One other thing that worries me is that Notch got the offer too. Is this part of some larger scheme to shift revenue streams from small time youtubers to corporations? Because yet another way to enrich the rich is not something anyone needs, including the rich. Bread and circuses.
One other thing that worries me is that Notch got the offer too. Is this part of some larger scheme to shift revenue streams from small time youtubers to corporations? Because yet another way to enrich the rich is not something anyone needs, including the rich. Bread and circuses.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
If you made a stand that sold McDonald stuff (souvenirs and crap but not actual MC Donald's items) do you really think it's ok Mc Donald doesn't get any money from it? Technically your advertising but your also making money from their brand name. This is the exact same thing (except the story owners put in more unique input), technically your advertising but they are also making money from the brand name of the game in question it's perfectly reasonable for the company to ask for that money because it is their IP.
You don't simply profit from a another companies IP, this is the absolute basic of basics.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Yeah, I think it should be up to each and every individual company whether or not they want to go after the revenue of LP:ers.
Some companies that are entirely dependant on LPs, like Mahjong, will probably not do it, while other companies that make linear games, where LPs basically save costumers from buying a game by just watching the game online, might want that revenue from it.
Just let the free market handle this one, if what TB says holds true:
Should asking for revenue of LP:ers result in LP:ers not doing your games which would hurt the exposure of the games in question, then the companies will feel it in their bottom line and change their tune.
Some companies that are entirely dependant on LPs, like Mahjong, will probably not do it, while other companies that make linear games, where LPs basically save costumers from buying a game by just watching the game online, might want that revenue from it.
Just let the free market handle this one, if what TB says holds true:
Should asking for revenue of LP:ers result in LP:ers not doing your games which would hurt the exposure of the games in question, then the companies will feel it in their bottom line and change their tune.
jakonovski
Member
Nah, they'll just blame piracy.
EmCeeGramr
Member
pokecapn rebuttal of TB:
Velcro Fly
Member
It isn't just let's plays being targeted, which has been stated in this topic no fewer than a dozen times by this point. It's anything showing gameplay. That means stuff like GameXplain is getting flagged too potentially even though they are a journalistic channel that posts reviews and other non let's play things.
Chuckpebble
Member
I thought Notch's tweets were jokes.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Just watched this, right on the nail.
strangedopamine
Member
A bump because the latest episode of Retsutalk has just been put up with Slowbeef, Diabetus and Proton Jon talking about the decision by Nintendo.
Link here.
Link here.
jim2point0
Banned
I like the part where you explained yourself
Sounds completely reasonable to me. Are there really LPers that think they deserve money for their LPs? If I was a LPer, I'd love the money made from views to go to the developer of the game, or at least the publisher.
How narcissistic can you be to think you should be paid for your amateur in-game commentary? I have yet to hear any LPer who's worth paying for.
How narcissistic can you be to think you should be paid for your amateur in-game commentary? I have yet to hear any LPer who's worth paying for.
EleventhDoctor
Banned
They do-and they've now been moaning about this for a few days-claiming that they're Nintendo fans and they are providing Nintendo a service by giving them free publicity. They took it upon themselves to do this job and feel they're entitled to the money because they actually had to "work hard" while playing the game and editing the video.
Way to misuse the "white knight" term. Who here is trying to get in Nintendo's pants?
Also, I'm pretty sure you know the difference between a fansite that costs money to keep online, and a video of a playthrough of a game, with casual commentary, posted on YouTube for free.
Journalistic videos being claimed by Nintendo is a whole other issue. I don't think anyone here is defending Nintendo in that area.
lazybones18
Banned
Guess this person has something to say the whole situation as well
http://www.twitch.tv/darksydephil/b/404804902
http://www.twitch.tv/darksydephil/b/404804902
jediyoshi
Member
Not that that's how ad money works in this case, but it's just a quality thing? If they appealed to you more, LPers would be in the clear?
Why can't he watch the videos now?
SatelliteOfLove
Member
This sort of "shut 'em down, control the message" thing has been going on for a while, but the angle that YouTube/Google themselves are approaching game IP owners themselves with offers of the ad revenue is an angle I'm not sure why exists.
RobotMafia
Banned
Nintendo are being cunts. No other thing to say, really. Its a dick move and shows how out of touch with reality Nintendo is.
Because the thread title Nintendo still implies that Nintendo is having Lets Play videos removed from the internet, even though that's not true.
Not appeal, but if they had more substance, then yes. For example, let's say that the LPer was analyzing/critiquing the game in an academic fashion. Or, let's say the LPer was satirizing the game by recording their own voiceovers, like Yugioh Abridged does. In these cases, the primary substance of the video becomes not the game being played in full, but the content that's being added to the game by the LPer.
If there was such an LP being claimed by Nintendo, then I would have a problem with that. It has to be taken on a case by case basis. However, I'm fairly confident that the vast majority of LPers complaining about this are simply casually talking into a mic while they're playing, like you would if a friend was watching you play. I have yet to see an LP that is different from this.
(I'm really the Official Nintendo Chief of Defense today, aren't I? First Best Buy, now this. And I don't even own a Wii U or 3DS.)