Support NeoGAF

[choodi]

You really need me to clarify this for you? You really do not see the difference between films and games?

No i don't see a difference

 

[call_kotaku]

Taking away the Gamersgate dictionary... (I just read that myself and cringed)

Better phrased:"Should Nintendo always take action?"

But of course, the practical angle is what I've been arguing mostly.

It just doesn't make sense for Nintendo to do this.

It's crazy that most of the biggest games that are LP'd have a community in which LP'ers are praised by devs. Hell, CoD and Minecraft LP'ers can get more than just the 'privelege' of having their videos monetized.

Assuming it's not just Nintendo Legal or Nintendo Japan doing something without considering the consequences, there is something to be said for exercising every right afforded to you by the law to protect your intellectual property in order to set a precedent. No independent outlet will touch Nintendo properties, and if Nintendo thinks exposure is less important than maintaining absolute control of their brands, they might actually be right in doing this.

 

[R_thanatos]

Reviews don't normally get flagged.

Going by jimquisition ( he states this at the end ) or angry joe himself .
reviews do get flagued.

And many times it's when they use promotionnal material some publisher give themselves.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

No i don't see a difference

Well, then I don't know how I can help you.

Films are a passive experience, I can get the 'same' experience by watching someone stream a film as I can actually watching the film myself.

Games are not a passive experience, I do not at all get the 'same' experience by watching a lets play as I do when I actually play the game.

If you really cannot see the difference, then there isn't a discussion to be had.

 

[Vena]

Going by jimquisition ( he states this at the end ) or angry joe himself .
reviews do get flagued.

And many times it's when they use promotionnal material some publisher give themselves.

Yes, it CAN happen but it shouldn't and normally doesn't. It has happened before, certainly, but Nintendo in general does not touch reviews unless for some stupid reason the CiD program gets tripped.

That's more of an issue with YouTube, though, but if its a genuine review you can overturn a claim.

 

[Phamit]

I just watched the video angryjoe made ( his final nintendo rant ) and he already answers this. he uploaded that original mario party vid , before putting 30+ hours of work working on a review that would get flagued.

Also it's funny how the jimquisition video basicly answers all the complains of the first 10 pages

Yeah he said that, but it seems nothing changed from the last time when he uploaded MK8. It doesn't look like that he talked with nintendo or Polaris ( his MCN) about it, so what did he expect? That suddenly Nintendo changed their You Tobe Policy and didn't say it to anyone`?

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Yes, it CAN happen but it shouldn't and normally doesn't. It has happened before, certainly, but Nintendo in general does not touch reviews unless for some stupid reason the CiD program gets tripped.

Huh? There is no distinction--Nintendo never touches anything technically; it's all ContentID. And it's as likely to catch a review as it is anything else.Wasn't TheBitBlock complaining about this recently? I know he's mentioned having a ton of videos claimed in the past

That's more of an issue with YouTube, though, but if its a genuine review you can overturn a claim

Yeah, good luck with that. Nintendo has 4-weeks to respond, long after which point the video would be making any money (which is almost always within the first 48-hours)

 

[Moon_frogger]

Well, then I don't know how I can help you.

Films are a passive experience, I can get the 'same' experience by watching someone stream a film as I can actually watching the film myself.

Games are not a passive experience, I do not at all get the 'same' experience by watching a lets play as I do when I actually play the game.

If you really cannot see the difference, then there isn't a discussion to be had.

What about something largely story driven with little input like the walking dead games. what then, snarky?

 

[vcc]

Are you seriously blaming AVGN, the man who paved the way and inspired many in the video game industry to publish gaming related things on Youtube?

Don't blame James for others, he busts his ass doing these videos out of passion. Even his movie was more of a passion product than it was "a cheap cash-in".

The man deserves respect for his "hussle".

It's tongue in cheek. He originated it but he did it as a gag. It wasn't his entire persona. For a lot of the youtubers it is the persona they project rather than a gag.

 

[213372bu]

Assuming it's not just Nintendo Legal or Nintendo Japan doing something without considering the consequences, there is something to be said for exercising every right afforded to you by the law to protect your intellectual property in order to set a precedent. No independent outlet will touch Nintendo properties, and if Nintendo thinks exposure is less important than maintaining absolute control of their brands, they might actually be right in doing this.

And a large number of gamers are touching Nintendos properties as a result.


But a group of people and personalities playing Mario Party adds value. And that is where gaming medium is different then watching LotR and ranting over it with a commentary.

Seananners makes every game he plays surge in sales whenever he does a video on a game, even older titles like Garry's Mod.

Nintendo can think they are protecting their IPs, sure, but in truth all they are doing is preventing videos that are giving them better word-of-mouth and exposure from even being made.

This form of thinking is backwards and hurting Nintendo while the competition is reaping the benefits.

It's tongue in cheek. He originated it but he did it as a gag. It wasn't his entire persona. For a lot of the youtubers it is the persona they project rather than a gag.

I know, but I attribute the personality of AVGN as a result of the "angry" gamer culture of the time. Now it's just that these people have mouthpieces.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

What about something largely story driven with little input like the walking dead games. what then, snarky?

Snarky?

Still different from my perspective, TWD has a great deal of player choice involved that alters the game, no?

The larger issue here is we do not have settled law on this issue and trying to paint let's play as the same thing as watching a movie is just silly. Playing a game vs watching a lets play is a completely different experience.

 

[badb0y]

Yeah he said that, but it seems nothing changed from the last time when he uploaded MK8. It don't look like that he talked with nintendo or Polaris ( his MCN) about it, so what did he expect? That suddenly Nintendo changed their You Tobe Policy and didn't say it to anyone`?

I guess he thought Nintendo grew up, lol.

At this point it doesn't really matter because there's so many other publishers and developers that DO want YouTouber's to cover their games for Nintendo to have any leverage to strong arm anyone.

 

[meanspartan]

What ad revenue? He was the one making money from their work.

Fuck off. Whether you like him or not, hundreds of thousands of HIS subscribers watched to see HIM play a Nintendo game. Took him years to build up a following so of course he should be paid for it.

nintendo gets free advertising. But I guess thats not enough for the backwards ass company.

 

[Petrae]

Another opinion on the case, I'm just gonna leave this here, viewer discretion reccomended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACxVUcCq4Lc

Still no ReviewTechUSA video...

Holy shit. I was certain that his head was going to explode. We have our next Morton Downey, Jr. in waiting.

 

[Vena]

Huh? There is no distinction--Nintendo never touches anything technically; it's all ContentID. And it's as likely to catch a review as it is anything else.Wasn't TheBitBlock complaining about this recently? I know he's mentioned having a ton of videos claimed in the past

The distinction is that the CiD isn't meant to flag reviews, and there's a plethora of monetized reviews.

Yeah, good luck with that. Nintendo has 4-weeks to respond, long after which point the video would be making any money (which is almost always within the first 48-hours)

Immaterial. You have power to overturn it, and again the time of response is within YouTube's policy guidelines.

 

[213372bu]

What about something largely story driven with little input like the walking dead games. what then, snarky?

Two Best Friends played The Walking Dead. Judging from the comments section, they cause tons upon tons of people to buy the game and see what the other paths are, or what other decisions do.

They created value, piqued interest of the viewers, and caused people to go out and buy the game through their personality driven gaming channel.

I have bought tons of games I would never give the time of day because of Youtube LPers.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

The distinction is that the CiD isn't meant to flag reviews, and there's a plethora of monetized reviews.

But it does flag reviews, just as it doesn't catch every LP either.

Immaterial. You have power to overturn it, and again the time of response is within YouTube's policy guidelines

Immaterial? Monetization is the entire point of this thread. A 4-week delay in the ability to do such makes it effectively the same as the claim being upheld. There is effectively no difference.

Also, TheBitBlock has tried to over-turn claims on reviews/similar content and they didn't go through iirc. Nintendo is the sole arbiter, which is why the process is so messed up.

 

[Palculator]

Snarky?

Still different from my perspective, TWD has a great deal of player choice involved that alters the game, no?

The larger issue here is we do not have settled law on this issue and trying to paint let's play as the same thing as watching a movie is just silly. Playing a game vs watching a lets play is a completely different experience.

Sorry for quoting myself but I'd still like to hear your thoughts regarding something that can easily be overlooked on the previous page:

What about the non-interactive assets of video games, though? The music, sounds, models, textures, FMVs etc. are still copyrighted and are not really altered by a Let's Player's performance. Aside from maybe stuff like Little Big Planet where the player can create his own assets.

I'm not aware of Let's Plays that feature the interactive part of games exclusively, they always include copyrighted assets that would be governed by the same rules as whatever medium they are traditionally from.

 

[Vena]

But it does flag reviews, just as it doesn't catch every LP either.

That's a fault with YouTube's algos.

Immaterial? Monetization is the entire point of this thread. A 4-week delay in the ability to do such makes it effectively the same as the claim being upheld. There is effectively no difference.

Also, TheBitBlock has tried to over-turn claims on reviews/similar content and they didn't go through iirc. Nintendo is the sole arbiter, which is why the process is so messed up.

You shouldn't be unable to overturn a review CiD, so that is also a problem with the system and Nintendo. However, there are numerous, numerous reviews that are monetized and no one has problems with it. Obviously there are exceptions but the rule is rather obviously set that reviews go untouched, not the other way around.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Sorry for quoting myself but I'd still like to hear your thoughts regarding something that can easily be overlooked on the previous page:

I'm not aware of Let's Plays that feature the interactive part of games exclusively, they always include copyrighted assets that would be governed by the same rules as whatever medium they are traditionally from.

I'm not really sure what you want a comment on to be honest.

There are copyrighted assets in Monopoly can I not post a video of me and my friends getting drunk and playing it?

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

That's a fault with YouTube's algos.

That doesn't clear Nintendo of being guilty of acting like a short-sided dick. They're apparently A-OK with a broken system.

 

[Darknight]

Just curious, does Sony and MS do this to YT streamers on their games? I remember people watching or taking note say of The Order 1886 lasting 5 hours or such. That means a person played the game from beginning to end. So did Sony file a copyright claim on these people?

 

[call_kotaku]

And a large number of gamers are touching Nintendos properties as a result.


But a group of people and personalities playing Mario Party adds value. And that is where gaming medium is different then watching LotR and ranting over it with a commentary.

Seananners makes every game he plays surge in sales whenever he does a video on a game, even older titles like Garry's Mod.

Nintendo can think they are protecting their IPs, sure, but in truth all they are doing is preventing videos that are giving them better word-of-mouth and exposure from even being made.

This form of thinking is backwards and hurting Nintendo while the competition is reaping the benefits.


I know, but I attribute the personality of AVGN as a result of the "angry" gamer culture of the time. Now it's just that these people have mouthpieces.

It would be beneficial for the exposure of their games to allow people to make whatever coverage they want, yes, but maybe Nintendo doesn't believe it's enough of a benefit for them to essentially tell their legal department to stop doing their jobs. It's probably not correct, but I don't fault them for thinking their IPs are more important than their sales figures.

 

[Palculator]

I'm not really sure what you want a comment on to be honest.

There are copyrighted assets in Monopoly can I not post a video of me and my friends getting drunk and playing it?

Well, you said that somehow copyright practices common in the music or movie industry don't apply to video games due to interactivity that does not affect the music or movies contained in video games.

And I've already responded to your previous inquiries about this fringe case of monetized Monopoly. If we were to get technical, I would imagine someone would indeed be able to claim infringement if you were to profit off of playing Monopoly. But:

It always depends on how big you are. No one is going to pay a lawyer more money than is to be gained by going after you. Think of it this way: If there was a high-budget TV show about stars playing board games that attracts loads of viewers, would you find it that odd that Hasbro claims to deserve some royalties? After all, their material contributed to a show that produces a lot of income. It's not an unnatural assumption at all. I'd wager the only reason we are actually seeing this affecting even smaller content creators is the efficiency of the content ID system. Neither Nintendo, nor any other publisher, needs to go through the trouble of maintaining staff that seek out every possible infringement on their copyright because a robot is doing it for them -- all watched over by machines of loving grace.

Edit: I should add that content ID wouldn't work as well with board games due to them having little multimedia assets the content ID system actually looks for.

 

[213372bu]

It would be beneficial for the exposure of their games to allow people to make whatever coverage they want, yes, but maybe Nintendo doesn't believe it's enough of a benefit for them to essentially tell their legal department to stop doing their jobs. It's probably not correct, but I don't fault them for thinking their IPs are more important than their sales figures.

Sure, but that train of thought, imo, is completely backwards and stems from thinking about the game media landscape as if it were the same as it was in the late 90's.

Truth is, there is so much value that has been created that benefits not just indies, but even large game companies.

As a person who enjoys Nintendo's games and grew up on Nintendo consoles, I feel so disappointed that they think this way in a business sense.

 

[R_thanatos]

Yeah he said that, but it seems nothing changed from the last time when he uploaded MK8. It doesn't look like that he talked with nintendo or Polaris ( his MCN) about it, so what did he expect? That suddenly Nintendo changed their You Tobe Policy and didn't say it to anyone`?

I'm pretty certain that he stated in one of his vlog that he did make contact with nintendo folks and all he got was the same answer : "nintendo program". heck we don't even know if something else was tried or done ..just the end result.

 

[4Tran]

Just curious, does Sony and MS do this to YT streamers on their games? I remember people watching or taking note say of The Order 1886 lasting 5 hours or such. That means a person played the game from beginning to end. So did Sony file a copyright claim on these people?

Nope. Neither company is as backwards as Nintendo.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Well, you said that somehow copyright practices common in the music or movie industry don't apply to video games due to interactivity that does not affect the music or movies contained in video games.

Do they? Do you have any case law saying that they do? This is a new frontier, we will find out eventually I'm sure.

And I've already responded to your previous inquiries about this fringe case of monetized Monopoly. If we were to get technical, I would imagine someone would indeed be able to claim infringement if you were to profit off of playing Monopoly. But:

They can claim whatever they like, I do not think that it would actually be upheld in court. It is laughable that me making money off of playing with a product could even be viewed as copyright infringement.

 

[Hubble]

I thought Minecraft and more in today's society would teach Nintendo how exposure from social media can benefit through word of mouth and sharing social experiences through the internet.

Nope. Nintendo's mindset in the gaming space has been of a grandfather mentality over the last decade.

 

[James Scott]

Just curious, does Sony and MS do this to YT streamers on their games? I remember people watching or taking note say of The Order 1886 lasting 5 hours or such. That means a person played the game from beginning to end. So did Sony file a copyright claim on these people?

I think Sony took down that particular video, they've done a couple videos but I don't think they use Content ID.
I remember the person that uploaded the play through got his channel shut down or something like that

 

[Rootbeer]

Another opinion on the case, I'm just gonna leave this here, viewer discretion reccomended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACxVUcCq4Lc

Still no ReviewTechUSA video...

Mirrors my thoughts on it somewhat. Joe makes a MP10 video knowing with a high likelihood that it will be claimed JUST SO HE CAN POST HIS ANGRY 'FUCK YOU NINTENDO' REBUTTAL and pull in ad rev from that, people are getting played by Joe and it couldn't be anymore transparent.

But, ya know, he has this whole "angry" persona to maintain. So let's just get angry over an issue he is already very well versed on and has only himself to blame in the matter.

Joe's constant complaining about videos being claimed and his subsequent takedown of the videos is obnoxious. We get it, you make your living off youtube. Few youtubers let their viewers know this more than Joe.

 

[Darknight]

Nope. Neither company is as backwards as Nintendo.

Ah ok.

 

[casiopao]

Cutting the monetization is essentially has the same effect as taking it down.

Except it is not at all. He can still attract new fans of Nintendo fanbase into entering his subs and end up going to watch all his other review. I would say Joe is being a bit too short minded here.

 

[bomblord1]

Can't he just submit the video and get ad revenue? Sorry I'm a little confused at the anger.

 

[Vena]

Nope. Neither company is as backwards as Nintendo.

Sony takes down videos from time to time (the original full playthrough of The Order, is gone, for instance), and they will take down Twitch early plays which, ironically, Nintendo does not do.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Except it is not at all. He can still attract new fans of Nintendo fanbase into entering his subs and end up going to watch all his other review. I would say Joe is being a bit too short minded here.

Not saying he isn't to blame at all for this, but I think it is Nintendo that needs to embrace the 21st century when it comes to streaming/lets play.

 

[Marcel]

Sony takes down videos from time to time, and they will take down Twitch early plays which, ironically, Nintendo does not do.

And we have finally reached the Sony Too™ part of this discussion.

 

[Palculator]

Do they? Do you have any case law saying that they do? This is a new frontier, we will find out eventually I'm sure.

No, I don't. But it seems to me like you're just moving goalposts. In previous posts you held the notion that video games are obviously so drastically different from other media that none of the respective copyright regulations should apply as self-evident and even denied a poster who didn't share this view further discussion:

Well, then I don't know how I can help you.

Films are a passive experience, I can get the 'same' experience by watching someone stream a film as I can actually watching the film myself.

Games are not a passive experience, I do not at all get the 'same' experience by watching a lets play as I do when I actually play the game.

If you really cannot see the difference, then there isn't a discussion to be had.

But now, after being pointed out that the issue isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, you suddenly require a higher authority in form of legal precedent when none is required to actually address my points about traditional media being a big part of video games and thus Let's Plays.

 

[Vena]

And we have finally reached the Sony Too™ part of this discussion.

Huh? It was a question that was asked, read up.

I am not saying Sony Too™, I am answering to what was asked and stated.

 

[call_kotaku]

Just curious, does Sony and MS do this to YT streamers on their games? I remember people watching or taking note say of The Order 1886 lasting 5 hours or such. That means a person played the game from beginning to end. So did Sony file a copyright claim on these people?

There was a scandal a while back where MS were paying members of the Machinima network extra CPM in exchange for them making videos for the Xbox One, with the one caveat that they couldn't mention it was a paid video. In general they want to do what they can to promote favorable content for their platforms, which is why they both feature twitch streaming very heavily.

 

[antonz]

Huh? It was a question that was asked, read up.

I am not saying Sony Too™, I am answering to what was asked and stated.

Just ignore Marcel. He seems to be taking this thread almost personal

 

[213372bu]

Can't he just submit the video and get ad revenue? Sorry I'm a little confused at the anger.

He could, but would rather not have a 40+% cut taken out between Youtube, Polaris and Nintendo.

So instead he's going to do videos on games where he can get as much money as possible, which is not Nintendo.

 

[Marcel]

Just ignore Marcel. He seems to be taking this thread almost personal

Making an aside about my feelings (which you don't know shit about) means you have nothing to actually discuss hence you are useless to everyone in this thread.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

No, I don't. But it seems to me like you're just moving goalposts. In previous posts you held the notion that video games are obviously so drastically different from other media that none of the respective copyright regulations should apply as self-evident and even denied a poster who didn't share this view further discussion:

I never said that none of the copyright law should carry over, but they are different types of media thus the exact same laws are not as valid, especially when it comes to let's play. That has been pretty clear from the start, hence my continual reference to monopoly, playing a game of arkham horror, etc.

But now, after being pointed out that the issue isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, you suddenly require a higher authority in form of legal precedent when none is required to actually address my points about traditional media being a big part of video games and thus Let's Plays.

I'm asking for case law as an example of the fact that this is a new frontier and yet to be decided. Hugs.

You think the law should be the same for a lets play as streaming a movie, I don't. No big deal.

 

[Gamezone]

Found the tweet where he already complained about the programm https://twitter.com/AngryJoeShow/status/562455254583611392

He knew very well what would happen

I don't think Nintendo made the right choices, but this seems fishy from Joe

His Rants usually generates more klicks then his lets Play, so maybe he took the opportunity...again

This.

The problem with this thread isn`t Nintendo. I think the entire Youtube thing with Nintendo is bullshit, but Angry Joe sure as hell knew this would happen. He recently bought his Wii U, and this tweet was posted back in February, so he even knew it before buying it. Joe is smart. The rant he made about Nintendo taking down his video have already generated way more attention than the one that got pulled down.

 

[antonz]

Making an aside about my feelings (which you don't know shit about) means you have nothing to actually discuss hence you are useless to everyone in this thread.

Aren't you cute. You have on multiple occasions used this thread personally attacking people. having people tell you to chill out then when you get called out on your bullshit you try to play the I am a calm logical person schtik

We know your gimmick. Detailing why someone who lives off clicks and views would do something to generate clicks and views is not some gamergate idea or anything else. You throw around a lot of shit

 

[Marcel]

Aren't you cute. You have on multiple occasions used this thread personally attacking people. having people tell you to chill out then when you get called out on your bullshit you try to play the I am a calm logical person schtik

We know your gimmick

You and the GameXplain guy used Gamergate-tier delusional paranoiac logic to make your points. I'd say I'm doing okay.

 

[4Tran]

Sony takes down videos from time to time (the original full playthrough of The Order, is gone, for instance), and they will take down Twitch early plays which, ironically, Nintendo does not do.

Taking down videos for particular reasons is infinitely more sensible than blanket Content ID claim flagging. There can be advantages in doing the former, and just about none for the latter.

 

[badb0y]

Sony takes down videos from time to time (the original full playthrough of The Order, is gone, for instance), and they will take down Twitch early plays which, ironically, Nintendo does not do.

Both of those happened before the street date was broken. Please stop with the false equivalency.

 

[jmizzal]

I think Sony took down that particular video, they've done a couple videos but I don't think they use Content ID.
I remember the person that uploaded the play through got his channel shut down or something like that

Where is the 60 page thread on that? Oh yea its not Nintendo so no biggie