Mods will ban you for this kind of post. I should know
Oh, and Nintendo, you need to get cho life.
-
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
Mods will ban you for this kind of post. I should know
Oh, and Nintendo, you need to get cho life.
Its not a strange occurrence, and most of these claims will come from music and video guys though if you use a bit of music in your video and have an entire 30-minute video flagged for 5-10 seconds of a song/footage. In terms of gaming though, I think Nintendo pretty much aggressive about their guarding their IP. Be it trailers, music, video, it'll all get flagged. While I do know that other gaming companies do this, sega for example with the shining videos, I think Nintendo likely most of their content protected by this system so its going to be very aggressive towards Nintendo centric videos.
so it's Tales From Your Ass, got it.
I guess you do care then?
jakonovski
Member
So you're a harsh games-as-licences proponent. Ok, now it makes sense, though I obviously don't agree with the approach.
Leafhopper
Banned
Are Joe's rant videos monetized?
GiantBreadbug
Member
No, it's contributing my opinion.
I guess every post in here is a tale from an ass, then.
Common sense would deem someone spend their time making more money on videos for other companies.
Why are you offended?
J
Jpop
Unconfirmed Member
Any video he posts should be monetized.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
So angry Joe essentially got a notice saying he wasn't allowed to upload nintendo videos and then spun it to try and act like he's voluntarily not uploading them?
Trogdor1123
Gold Member
You're a lawyer aren't you? Its nice to see people familiar with stuff like this commenting.
So how does a claim to something like this work in other arenas? Clearly AJ has contributed some work to the video and should be compensated for it. I think everyone can agree to that, but Nintendo is for sure vital to that process for sure and as a result is the root cause of the video. Is it always an all or nothing approach or would it usually have some sort of break down?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Yet they stand to profit off guys like him, that promote Nintendo's games.
Nintendo sticking their foot on the neck of a little guy does nothing positive for them. A simple video of a bunch of gamers having fun playing Mario Party 10 does not hurt Nintendo is any way shape or form. Joe does it with other publisher's games with no problem, and he usually follows it up with a review.
Nintendo being the stingy bastards they are, want to shake him down the little guy for a cut of his channel's advertising money. While they have a right to do so, they wield no real power. It's the YouTube creators that wield the true power, and so they rightfully will treat Nintendo as if they didn't exist. Not really a good thing in this day and age.
Yes, do you see the video? He has to pay 40% each time he mentions the word "nintendo".
Here's the problem, this:
Reads like you think it's a fact.
When there has been no such court ruling on what entitles "fair use".
Beelzebufo
Banned
It's especially not a good thing for all of Angry Joe's fans who donated money for him to make Wii U videos, only for him to take them down out of spite because he wasn't getting paid enough
Truly greed is bad for all.
GiantBreadbug
Member
I don't care about the plight of poor LPers, no. The issue at large, I have an opinion on. But I can't manage to muster up any sympathy for the people who literally just upload themselves playing a whole game and cry when they're told they can't anymore without sharing the revenue.
I don't like certain parts of Nintendo's policy, but in general I think it was unrealistic to expect YouTube videos like this to go unbothered forever.
No intelligent person thinks that AngryJoe does this for the good of the people. It's about the money, obviously.
That's false, he gets more views on his reviews, and in turn, more money.
40%,jeeeeeezus that's a load of bullshit. All the free exposure means dick to Nintendo, huh.
ebullientprism
Member
You would think Nintendo would be courting people like AJ. I cant stand the guy but he has a pretty decent chunk of the "Bro" audience on Youtube and I bet not many of those Bros have a WiiU. Exposure of their games and console to that audience would be incredibly hard to get in most other places so I would have though Nintendo would be jumping all over it. Its not like the CoD/BF audience is going out of their way to see what WiiU games are like.
But nope. Nintendo gonna Nintendo. Cant see the forest for the trees.
But nope. Nintendo gonna Nintendo. Cant see the forest for the trees.
Leafhopper
Banned
That "little guy" has two million subscribers and makes a huge profit off that "simple video of a bunch of gamers having fun playing Mario Party 10". This is not some kid posting videos on YouTube for fun, this is a guy running a very popular business.
GiantBreadbug
Member
I guess I should've thrown "imo" in there? I thought that was assumed. I would've included links if I thought I was enlightening some legal truth.
evilromero
Member
YouTube is a commercial platform. Users are specifically asked that they own the rights to the content they are uploading. There is no grey area here.
Trogdor1123
Gold Member
Is there any cases where companies that are trying to monetize these videos also work hand in hand with the creators of them to cross promote?
Im not sure if the you tubers would like it as it might seem, or possible even actually, like it would deny them the freedom that exercise right. I am thinking of you tubers being treated the same way that pubs treat webpages like game trailers where they send traffic back and forth through ads and what not.
It would seem to be a match made in heaven for both parties if they remained impartial... which I know would never happen.
Im not sure if the you tubers would like it as it might seem, or possible even actually, like it would deny them the freedom that exercise right. I am thinking of you tubers being treated the same way that pubs treat webpages like game trailers where they send traffic back and forth through ads and what not.
It would seem to be a match made in heaven for both parties if they remained impartial... which I know would never happen.
Swass
Member
Nintendo gets paid when the hundreds or thousands of people who watch Joes video go out and buy the game because they saw it on his video. In a perfect world for the current system to be a fair, Nintendo would take what they take now from the videos, and then Joe should receive a commission on the copies his video sales. But of course that doesn't happen..
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
That is what it amounts to.
ViperVisor
Member
There are a lot of facts that are being tossed aside because of 'feels'.
What is on a game disc is by and large owned by people that didn't buy the disc.
Ploid 3.0
Member
I really, REALLY hate this excuse of "free ad and coverage".
I mean, meanwhile, at Nintendo:
Meanwhile at indy devs (slender man, amnesia, five nights), Riot Games, Valve, Clash of Clans, Mojang, Sony, Microsoft, etc. etc.
And you're going to beleie everything ?
This is internet so unless we see any ofcial statement from Nintendo... what we're doing here is just gossips. But internet, it's like that just gossips.
Their legal basis for this kind of decision is solid. Business wise, it's a terrible idea. The fact that other publishers don't behave this way about their content speaks not of their indifference or aloofness but rather a more nuanced understanding of current market dynamics.
This is one of many fronts where Nintendo is way behind the curve from a managerial standpoint. They're still at the top of their game as content creators, but they seriously need to get with the times in terms of their managerial practices. Their marketing (or lack thereof), brand positioning, third-part relations, SKU inflexibility (MS dropped Kinect; they can't drop the tablet?), reluctance to embrace the visibility granted by popular YouTube personalities, region-locking, simplistic online platform are all just a horrible mess.
I love Nintendo as creators but honestly cringe and feel sorry at their decisions as managers. The non-stop generation over generation reduction in their console sales (excepting the Wii jackpot) is the result of this. Sadly, making the best games isn't enough.
People posting about their right to do this, moral or legal, are missing the point. This isn't about whether they *can* - that much is clear. Whether it's worth the hassle or at all beneficial to them is a different matter entirely. I'd wager a good review or positive play session stream could easily sell a few copies and far outweigh losing a US$9.82 check for ad revenue they're entitled to as copyright holders.
As many other backward decisions, this one is best summed up as "their loss".
This is one of many fronts where Nintendo is way behind the curve from a managerial standpoint. They're still at the top of their game as content creators, but they seriously need to get with the times in terms of their managerial practices. Their marketing (or lack thereof), brand positioning, third-part relations, SKU inflexibility (MS dropped Kinect; they can't drop the tablet?), reluctance to embrace the visibility granted by popular YouTube personalities, region-locking, simplistic online platform are all just a horrible mess.
I love Nintendo as creators but honestly cringe and feel sorry at their decisions as managers. The non-stop generation over generation reduction in their console sales (excepting the Wii jackpot) is the result of this. Sadly, making the best games isn't enough.
People posting about their right to do this, moral or legal, are missing the point. This isn't about whether they *can* - that much is clear. Whether it's worth the hassle or at all beneficial to them is a different matter entirely. I'd wager a good review or positive play session stream could easily sell a few copies and far outweigh losing a US$9.82 check for ad revenue they're entitled to as copyright holders.
As many other backward decisions, this one is best summed up as "their loss".
Mithos
Member
But in those cases he didn't stop covering the games from whatever company the Content ID match came from RIGHT, he only do that if the company name say Nintendo RIGHT?
That's not true.
Some Content IDs can make an account not in good standing, resulting in loss of features that accounts in good standing can have.
It's really not that hard.
So can I upload a video of me playing a Strato guitar copyrighted by Fender? Can I upload a video of a kid playing blocks copyrighted by LEGO?
Copyright law grants them exclusive rights to distribution of their games. Angry Joe is not distributing Nintendo games.
NoFaceNico
Member
It is a point and it's comical that you guys get so riled up by someone who puts some humor into his arguments. Clearly, my point is that the root of this Nintendo vs. Let's Players problem is that one of the greediest, money hungry companies out there is choosing to find any way it can to make money off of its fans.
Is there even any argument against that besides crying "how dare you criticize Nintendo! Bananable!"? Does anyone have any proof that Nintendo isn't doing this because of the simple fact that money is involved and Nintendo wants it? If a company like Valve (or any other relevant company) wanted to pull the same trick, they have the resources to do it. But even though they are legally entitled to do the same, they choose not to.
I like video games where Mario hits a box and coins fall out, I just don't want to be that box. Face it- Nintendo is not the happy, fun-loving, cutesy-utsy company you knew as a kid. They've grown up and they will take every dime they can
and are legally entitled to take
Hell, I'm lucky Gene Simmons didn't ask me for a check just for using his name to illustrate my point!
Yeah you're right. Wouldn't surprise me if it was around that number though.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
He isn't entitled to any commission just because he causes sales. He might "feel" entitled to a commission, but that just isn't how life works. You can't force someone to pay you for work that was not solicited or agreed upon in advance.
Your first mistake was implying kids still care about Nintendo.
jakonovski
Member
Generalised statements like that just don't work very well. According to EULA I'm obligated to all sorts of stuff that I'm really not.
The bottom line is that the law is not clear on the nature of video gaming as performance. In any country.
Moral Panic
Member
Riot recently took down a LoL stream they didn't like just because they didn't like it.
All of these companies maintain the right to give and take away the licence to stream their games.
And by pulling this on AJ, and other YouTube streamers, it's ensuring that to be the case. This makes me sad.
Pretty sure he said something similar about Capcom an SFV.
ViperVisor
Member
You aren't doing a game performance with with 1s and 0s. It is recognizable pictures and audio.
Its 99% clear who owns what.
They do though.
It just isn't at maximum potential because of bad business decisions.
But hey, Amiibo is apparently doing amazing and their smartphone games are going to be eaten up by young kids on their smartphones.
Trogdor1123
Gold Member
Wait, so you are saying Nintendo owes AJ money now? I just want to be clear here.
jakonovski
Member
According to Youtube and Nintendo the performance is about 40% owned by the game maker. And that's not the law either.