mangochutney
Member
That opening paragraph way too far-fetched and a whole heap of nonsense.
-
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.
AngryJoe receives a Nintendo copyright claim. Hope they enjoyed the ad revenue; Done
- Thread starter Khalifa Jayy
- Start date
You tell those ancient zombies that make up Nintendo shareholders and the board of directors they are losing pennies on the dollar and they will freak the fuck out.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
This is from a relevant GDC talk.
Video here:
http://gdcvault.com/play/1022063/How-YouTubers-and-Twitch-Streamers
This is a great post~
Well this just proves Nintendo is bigger than Angry. I don't think Nintendo would care if Angry was like IGN, GS reviewing games and sharing some of that revenue, like the big gaming do, but Angry doesn't he just plays a game, and people pay him "HIS" ad revenue to play a game. He should be honoured to play a Nintendo game and promise he'll donate half his revenue to vharity or something, then Nintendo wouldn't have been on his ass saying he can't just make money playing
They enjoy watching Joe rant about VIDEO GAMES. That's the point. Without the games, Joe has to find something else to feature. If you truly believe that Joe would have just as many subscribers if he were to make videos about tree frogs or apple sauce, I don't know what else to say.
The bottom line is that Joe is using someone else's IP for his own profit.
It still all comes back to "Why". Nintendo is the only one pulling this kind of crap so why should he, or anyone go out of their way to deal with it?
There is a reason most big youtubers have bowed out of Nintendo stuff.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
The guy got a Wii U for free and wants to profit off it and gets his panties in a bunch when he can't???
That's logical.
That's logical.
Mario Party 10 wouldn't benefit nearly as much as a game like '10 Second Ninja' would from YouTube personality coverage.
Nope, it's exactly the same.
And btw how does this not fall under fair use?
Well we can go at this forever since I can ask the same question again. So how come it would be a fair argument for one but not the other? Last I checked, Nintendo has the final word, and people are defending this.
Seriously, how come this is only an issue with Nintendo? Who, by the way, already got the money from the copy of the game that was bought to produce the content. Why exactly would they be entitled to any money made by a perfectly legal use of said game? When that money is made because of someone's work, and not just as a mere reproduction of the game?
Petrae
Member
I think there's certainly room for discussion about whether publishers and/or developers should be getting a cut of the revenue created based on their work. Obviously video is big business, and there should be ample room for compromise between all sides.
Honestly, I think someone needs to take this to court and get a fresh interpretation and ruling.
I think that video talent is nervous about this, because they have something to lose if the decision goes in favor of the publishers; meanwhile, keeping the status quo and just understanding that some publishers are going to want their cut (or at least a final say as to what can/can't be monetized) is a far safer approach. At the same time... a ruling that could go in favor of YouTubers could free them from fear of Content ID / takedowns.
Either way, we'd have a new precedent for this still-new age of media consumption and how copyright is affected.
James Scott
Banned
This topic has always been rather weird. It's basically impossible to convince anyone of either position.
It's money Nintendo is entitled to, some can argue that it's smart business wise, some can argue it's not.
Nintendo thinks it is, so they are sticking with it.
I love a lot of YouTubers , so I don't think "get a real job" is a justified response.
I also don't think "lol, Nintendo defense force defending anything" is justified either.
I think both are entitled to revenue, which is what's going on. Some work needs to be done on the policies, but the idea is good.
There are valid points to both sides
It's money Nintendo is entitled to, some can argue that it's smart business wise, some can argue it's not.
Nintendo thinks it is, so they are sticking with it.
I love a lot of YouTubers , so I don't think "get a real job" is a justified response.
I also don't think "lol, Nintendo defense force defending anything" is justified either.
I think both are entitled to revenue, which is what's going on. Some work needs to be done on the policies, but the idea is good.
There are valid points to both sides
GuessMyUserName
Member
I agree that Nintendo should come to an agreement to keep him playing their games, and that this is a loss for them.... but nonetheless, whining and removing your videos over not being able to make money playing certain video games? I'm not a fan of the word, but that's some pretty entitled shit.
So yeah, nobody's looking so good here. If I were to pick a side here though it'd be Nintendo, since I really don't like Joe removing his videos he already has just because it's not making him money - especially considering how fans funded it.
So yeah, nobody's looking so good here. If I were to pick a side here though it'd be Nintendo, since I really don't like Joe removing his videos he already has just because it's not making him money - especially considering how fans funded it.
What? I said specifically making videos of playing Nintendo games.
Create footage for them? What does that even mean, are these youtubers marketing firms or something?
I thought we were talking about gamers creating content to share with other gamers. You know, everyday people like you and I. This is no different than from IGN for example, so I have no respect or care for channels like this. I want to see stuff that comes from the heart, you playing/talking about a game you're passionate about. Not this calculated/engineered fake crap to maximize views.
What the fuck?
jakonovski
Member
Come on, stop with the generalities. I can't think of a single TV programme that is like Angry Joe for example.
NoFaceNico
Member
... oh my god...
I just looked up the list of how many Wii U games there actually are. Answer: 111. http://www.nintendolife.com/wiiu/games
So for any game on that list there's about a 50/50 chance you own it. Can I make some guesses? Funky Barn? Just Dance 4? Angry Birds Trilogy? Or how was Hello Kitty Kruisers?
Have fun! I hear that DeNA's changing Mario's job title from "plumber" to "cow clicker"
it's really not though because it deals with much smaller games. the increase in sales an indie game would see from a big youtuber would be relatively significant to them and relatively meaningless to Nintendo.
Actually, I feel like that would reinforce that point (with the correction that his audience clearly has interest in videogames, in the general sense).
The goal for advertisers is to get exposure for [whatever] while making sure those people would actually be receptive to [the whatever]. You don't want to pay to "preach to the choir," because it's a poor use of resources, and you don't want to pay for maxi-pad advertising at a men's conference.
Any case where Angry Joe's audience is off the beaten trail for a game he's sharing is good for the publisher of the game (assuming he has a positive reaction). The audience is still gaming enthusiasts, but can be different niches.
I'm arguing that without using someone else's IP to bolster his business, Joe would be looking for a new line of work.
DoktorEvil
Banned
Your logic is faulty.
Considering making videos is his living, it'd be foolish to accommodate Nintendo games into his posting schedule that will not benefit him and create more work.
I don't care for Angry Joe pulling the woe is me bullshit, but at the same time Nintendo can either not try to strong arm him and other Youtubers or bring the favorable ones with significant mindshare in and cut a deal that would benefit both parties. Nintendo can't afford to appear anti-consumer in the slightest and the Youtubers can't afford to have more than one publisher start claiming copyright(frankly, they should and cut the gravy train off).
Did someone bump their head and forget that the Wii U is backwards compatible?
The library for both consoles is fairly large, since the Wii was also BC with Gamecube games.
This post is legit gold.
I don't know. Some might hold out hope that nintendo sees sense, but their past history makes this a thin hope.
I honestly don't know where you're from but in France, shows liek his are plentyfull on TV
For instance, on Musique Plus (Canadian channel) there was a TV show reviewing discs and the reviewer would prety much go as far as to break the disc on TV, rant abotu them, be angry at the music industry, etc.
I don't know if it's a french language thing but Joe doesn't strike me as very original or unique in his approach to games.
Yes, his personality playing videogames sells. Sells a lot even. You don't get such a huge subscriber base for nothing.
Thing is though, there's only one company archaic enough to restrict him showing gameplay footage with commentary. That's what this thread is about.
And guess what, it's not really Joe's problem, he'll just play something else and the world will keep spinning.
All the other big gaming companies don't think it's an issue that he's promoting and reviewing their IP's to his fanbase. In fact, I think they realize how powerful of a marketing tool it really is.
Agreed. But that's not going to happen.
Other developers, manufacturers and publishers are going to keep enjoying the free marketing and coverage. Nintendo will probably follow suit in a few years, behind the curve.
Funyarinpa
Member
I think the main issue here is how much of a video people consider to be content you deserve to get paid for.
For some people, what AJ does is merely "displaying Nintendo's work, therefore Nintendo deserves at least some of the money". For others, it is "using the game as a basis, creating original content, and since AJ creates that originality, he deserves most if not all of the revenue".
If everybody came to terms on "original content" and "the usage of others' content as a basis for original content", this discussion could be far more civilized.
For some people, what AJ does is merely "displaying Nintendo's work, therefore Nintendo deserves at least some of the money". For others, it is "using the game as a basis, creating original content, and since AJ creates that originality, he deserves most if not all of the revenue".
If everybody came to terms on "original content" and "the usage of others' content as a basis for original content", this discussion could be far more civilized.
It might make good business sense, but what Angry Joe is doing is kind of like a dude with a squeegee jumping out of nowhere, cleaning your dirty windshield then asking for money (it's not the best analogy, but it works if Joe thinks that the monetization is stealing money from the others).
Just let Nintendo have their dirty windshield. That's all there is to it.
Just let Nintendo have their dirty windshield. That's all there is to it.
Please explain why.
He's using a whole bunch of copyrighted softwares for his work which produces money on youtube. Nintendo is the only one having issues with it, so why would this be justified as opposed to the other ones? There's no difference whatsoever. Mario Party 10, Windows and whatever video editing software are all tools he's using to produce content. Which people want to watch as a whole.
Unless you're willing to think that watching him playing MP10 is exactly the same as buying and playing the game for yourself, in which case Nintendo lost a sale. We're not talking movies here.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
I'm addressing you not calling him a gamer because he's concerned about his business.
Alright buddy, let's relax. Just because he's in the business of creating game content on YouTube etc., and won't create Nintendo footage because he feels they're taking away from his work does not mean he's "not a gamer" as you said in your first post.
So much salt haha.
I would definitely like Nintendo to spread the wealth and let people make money doing these videos. But it's their IPs and as of right now they can enforce whatever policies on anyone using their content for monetizing purposes. And it's totally fine for Angry Joe to refuse to make Nintendo related videos because he doesn't like their policies. Maybe Nintendo will budge one day but I don't know their reasoning.
This is all really dramatic though. It seems like an issue being blown way out of proportion because it affects someone popular, but at the same time at least it means his voice might get heard.
I would definitely like Nintendo to spread the wealth and let people make money doing these videos. But it's their IPs and as of right now they can enforce whatever policies on anyone using their content for monetizing purposes. And it's totally fine for Angry Joe to refuse to make Nintendo related videos because he doesn't like their policies. Maybe Nintendo will budge one day but I don't know their reasoning.
This is all really dramatic though. It seems like an issue being blown way out of proportion because it affects someone popular, but at the same time at least it means his voice might get heard.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
If you don't think discussion is "warranted", what are you doing here?
Oh, I don't know, their stock value jumped when nintendo saw the (rotten) light of the mobile world (years after everyone else).
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Then maybe they should run it like a business and understand the ins and outs of what they do, rather than feigning indignation at a foregone conclusion. If your job entails use of other companies intellectual properties and you know their policies regarding the use of them, regardless of what your personal feelings about those policies might be, proceed accordingly. "Do you even know who I am Nintendo????" isn't an especially cogent argument.
If you're an enthusiast, accept that it's a work of passion and don't monetize something you know will invite a hassle. And if it's your business, then be a business person and work within the framework you've chosen, especially if other people's IPs and a host site form the crux of your operations. The wisdom of Nintendo's policies are up for public debate, the terms of them are black and white. AngryJoe is within his rights to pull the video or avoid Nintendo-centric content, but his pouting over an unambiguous policy doesn't strike me as the mark of a professional.
Isn't Sega still being a dick about their videos are have they stopped that?
GuessMyUserName
Member
This list is not what you say it is.
Bolded is a significant detail.
*quick Ctrl+F*
For example, Shovel Knight isn't listed. It's certainly a Wii U game, I own it!
call_kotaku
Member
On some level maybe Nintendo is taking the smart approach and providing their older fans with higher disposable incomes more ways of spending money on the Nintendo brand (I'm trying to put this in the most positive terms possible), instead of appealing to the new generation of kids who grew up with alternative experiences like Minecraft and aren't used to paying retail prices for boxed games. It's similar to the anime industry making most of their money from merchandising for a smaller but extremely dedicated fanbase, rather than trying to reach new demographics.
If these policies aren't done out of pure ignorance I can understand them thinking that setting a precedent for exercising all their legal rights whenever possible is more important to their business model than competing for mindshare with other brands.
alfredofroylan
Member
This note if on Yahoo (via Polygon) right now.
Relying on a shrinking niche market seems like the good way to promote no substantial growth or worst case scenario: put yourself out of business. (Nintendo's IP is too valuable for the latter of course)
EmptySpace
Banned
meh.
youtubers overestimate their value. they say they can give games a break. that is only true for niche, unknown, or poorly-marketed games, or indie games, or any combination of any of those.
games have sold before and they're going to sell now. youtubers aren't going to magically increase those numbers, no matter how much they say otherwise. on the flip side of the coin, youtubers aren't going to make wii u's sell gangbusters.
youtubers overestimate their value. they say they can give games a break. that is only true for niche, unknown, or poorly-marketed games, or indie games, or any combination of any of those.
games have sold before and they're going to sell now. youtubers aren't going to magically increase those numbers, no matter how much they say otherwise. on the flip side of the coin, youtubers aren't going to make wii u's sell gangbusters.
Alright? I never said they were going anywhere. I just think the outrage over a company's desire to see some of the profit generated form the use of its IPs is pretty nonsensical.
Er, not at all the same. That shows a gross misunderstanding of copyright.
It's not transformative. Running the content in the background and talking over it isn't a new thing, MST3K paid for licensing for example. This isn't different.
Raonak
Banned
Man, lots of nintendo fans are completely missing the point.
Sure, it's legally valid for nintendo to do this. In the same way Region locking is valid.
It's just fucking stupid, and completely backward. People aren't watching these channels for the games, they're watching it for how the personalities playing react.
Such a far cry from sony/ms who are making sharing as easy as possible on their consoles, even having streaming for lets plays directly built in to their consoles.
Sure, it's legally valid for nintendo to do this. In the same way Region locking is valid.
It's just fucking stupid, and completely backward. People aren't watching these channels for the games, they're watching it for how the personalities playing react.
Such a far cry from sony/ms who are making sharing as easy as possible on their consoles, even having streaming for lets plays directly built in to their consoles.
jakonovski
Member
True, reviews are pretty much protected on TV (and not on Youtube). But that leaves out the big issue of commented gameplay. Maybe I'm totally out of touch but I really can't think of a parallel on TV.
Find a comparable scenario in those industries and we can have a discussion about it.
ClosingADoor
Member
Bad example. You can't air a sports event with your own comment over it and make money from it. You need to pay for those broadcasting rights.
If he was only writing about it wouldn't be a problem. But I'm fairly sure that TV stations that air sport events with commentators has to pay the sport leagues