Support NeoGAF

[Hakai]

I think people with Nintendo themed tatoos should be forced to have them removed on their dime or pay Nintendo a fee.

Huh, are people who has this tatoos making money out of it?

 

[PsySal]

[deleted]

 

[Mr. Enigma]

I always figured that Let's Plays require a bit more originality and time, but it still feels weird supporting people who make a quick buck with little effort, mostly using others' works.

Spoken straight from someone who has obviously never done a quality Let's Play if you think it takes "little effort".

 

[Raist]

Fair use in the case of demonstration or reference is clearly provided in brief amounts of copying. For books or periodicals you get sentences, maybe a paragraph or two at most. AV you are typically allowed for seconds.. definitely under a couple of minutes.

Thing is, as in most cases, the whole "But look at books" or other copyrighted material is a bit tricky to apply.

So yeah, if you put half the content of a book/movie/album online, you directly violate copyrights and hurt the original media's sales. But uploading a video of yourself playing the game and getting money out of advertisements, that's quite different. People don't buy a game to watch someone play it, they buy it to play it.

 

[PsySal]

[deleted]

 

[Velcro Fly]

Spoken straight from someone who has obviously never done a quality Let's Play if you think it takes "little effort".

Or done any amount of serious recording/editing. Or started from basically nothing and drawn a ton of positive attention and actually built something.

 

[Doran902]

A lot of people bringing up how video editing and junk is a lot of work etc. It is and does require a lot of talent but....

Think about it like this, you can't upload a copy of a disney movie (the lion king) that you edited in your own commentary track / credits / cat pictures without disneys permission.

Just because you can use after effects and make funny voices doesnt give you the right to make money off of other peoples art without permission.

 

[lenovox1]

This is correct. My argument is that Jay-Z and the Beatles, regardless of whether or not Danger Mouse violated their copyright, do not get to turn around and sell The Grey Album or otherwise use it.

In my example, Jay-Z and the Beatles are the major publishers like Nintendo and Danger Mouse is an LPer.

So I'm agreeing with you, just saying it works both ways.

Another way of phrasing my argument is that (probably) a publisher has the right to force a LPer to take down a video, but that doesn't give the publisher a right to profit from the LPers work or otherwise modify it.

Somebody else mentioned the YT TOS which is likely the trump card; probably the LPer already agreed to let the publisher do this. But that doesn't make it reasonable or fair.

Again, Nintendo holds the right to authorization of derivative works and the right of performance.

If they want to take all of the money made from a derivative work or through a performance of their material, they can. THAT IS THEIR RIGHT.

Not your darling in any capacity, but yes; Nintendo probably has the right to demand this royalty or have the video taken down. Just don't forget the LPer also has their own copyright and Nintendo doesn't automatically inherit it.

The way the story was phrased, it sounded like the publishers just get to slap their ads on the LPers video. Probably the LPer agreed to this beforehand in the YT TOS, so fine, let's assume it's legal, but my point remains.

People act as though the LPers don't have their own copyright, which they do.

Of course they do, sweetie. Nintendo is not touching that, as of today.

 

[PataHikari]

That's what I'm missing. The people who create these videos create new revenue streams using Nintendo/MS content. By shutting down the monetization the revenue doesn't move back to Nintendo/MS, it simply ceases to exist. Wouldn't it be advantageous to get a piece of the money by doing some sort of revenue sharing or licensing with the video people rather than killing it outright?

Or maybe people who just want to have fun making videos of them playing videogames will post them on the internet. Rather then terrible youtube personalities like pewdiepie trying desperately to make money off the backs of video game developers.

 

[EleventhDoctor]

Sure. I mean if Lionel Ritchie/whatever label he's on doesn't care/know that someone is
using his work in their work then its not a big deal.

But if they find out and don't like it for whatever reason its perfectly reasonable for them to stop Girl Talk from performing that song, or at the very least get a cut of the money from it.

A good example of this is the song "Bittersweet Symphony" by The Verve. They sampled The Rolling Stone song "The Last Time".

from wikipedia:

Although the song's lyrics were written by Verve vocalist Richard Ashcroft, it has been credited to Keith Richards and Mick Jagger after charges by the original copyright owners that the song was plagiarized from the Andrew Oldham Orchestra recording of The Rolling Stones' 1965 song "The Last Time".

Originally, The Verve had negotiated a licence to use a sample from the Oldham recording, but it was successfully argued that the Verve had used "too much" of the sample.[13][14] Despite having original lyrics, the music of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" contains bongo drums sampled from the Oldham track, which led to a lawsuit with ABKCO Records, Allen Klein's company that owns the rights to the Rolling Stones material of the 1960s. The matter was eventually settled, with copyright of the song reverting to Abkco. Songwriting credits were changed to Jagger/Richards/Ashcroft, with 100% of royalties going to the Rolling Stones.

"We were told it was going to be a 50/50 split, and then they saw how well the record was doing," says band member Simon Jones. "They rung up and said, 'We want 100 percent or take it out of the shops, you don't have much choice.'" [sic][16]
After losing the composer credits to the song, Richard Ashcroft commented, "This is the best song Jagger and Richards have written in 20 years",[17] noting it was their biggest UK hit since "Brown Sugar".

On Ashcroft's return to touring, the song traditionally ended the set list. Ashcroft also reworked the single for VH2 Live for the music channel VH1, stripping the song of its strings. Ashcroft is quoted as saying during the show: "Despite all the legal angles and the bullshit, strip down to the chords and the lyrics and the melody and you realise there is such a good song there."

In a Cash for Questions interview with Q magazine published in January 1999, Keith Richards was asked (by John Johnson of Enfield) if he thought it was harsh taking all The Verve's royalties from "Bitter Sweet Symphony," to which he replied, "I'm out of whack here, this is serious lawyer shit. If The Verve can write a better song, they can keep the money."

 

[NTom64]

Basically terrible youtube LP superstars can't make youtube gold off of Nintendo's video's anymore.

Oh well. Can't wait for the other companies to get on this.

Not every LP'er is a massive prick who uses the game to jerk off their ego and puts little to no effort into it.

And by effort, I mean, you know...actually playing the game with an iota of skill.

Now, copyright law? If Nintendo doesn't want their content monetised by unaffiliated parties, that's fine. But what they're doing instead is simply taking control of other people's videos in addition to monetising their own. I find that very sketchy. It's not simply just "take the videos down, you don't own them". It's "we own your videos now". It doesn't matter if it's a clip of you and your friends playing Mario Party, or an in-depth discussion of the mechanics of Super Mario Galaxy. It's theirs, it's gone. And yes, this is their right, but the automated system on Youtube is going to cause massive headaches because of this.

Being asked to take the videos down is one thing, that's typical for Youtube and I would expect a company to enforce this, but this is Nintendo taking control of something that would probably do them more harm in the long run than good, revenue or no revenue.

 

[jgwhiteus]

This is correct. My argument is that Jay-Z and the Beatles, regardless of whether or not Danger Mouse violated their copyright, do not get to turn around and sell The Grey Album or otherwise use it.

In my example, Jay-Z and the Beatles are the major publishers like Nintendo and Danger Mouse is an LPer.

So I'm agreeing with you, just saying it works both ways.

Another way of phrasing my argument is that (probably) a publisher has the right to force a LPer to take down a video, but that doesn't give the publisher a right to profit from the LPers work or otherwise modify it.

Somebody else mentioned the YT TOS which is likely the trump card; probably the LPer already agreed to let the publisher do this. But that doesn't make it reasonable or fair.

Did you see the second example in my post, about "Bitter Sweet Symphony"? In that case, that's exactly what happened - the original copyright owner was entitled to 100% of the royalties from the copied song, even though the newer song had original lyrics. The original copyright holder (the Rolling Stones) had no involvement in creating the new song, but they were entitled to "sell" and reap the profits from it because it was based on their work.

There's a question of degree involved (how heavily are you copying someone else's work - a slight mention, or copying large parts), but no, if you incorporate someone else's work into your own, the original copyright holder has the right to assert at least some of their rights (like demanding you remove their work from your own, paying them a royalty, or in extreme cases taking your product out of circulation entirely).

 

[Velcro Fly]

A lot of people bringing up how video editing and junk is a lot of work etc It is but....

Think about it like this, you can't upload a copy of a disney movie (the lion king) that you edited in your own commentary track / credits / cat pictures without disneys permission.

Just because you can use after effects and make funny voices doesnt give you the right to make money off of other peoples art without permission.

I never once said they had a right to make money from it. I'm saying it's more work than many people realize. People bringing up the right for people to make money from it in regards to how much work it takes are missing the point in the biggest way possible.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

This situation does show why copyright law in 2013 really REALLY needs to be overhauled. There's too much grey area for the law which is really still stuck in 1998 and still doesn't really take the Internet into account at all.

Someone playing a game makes it a transitive work by definition of the Fair Use law, but no one can define where the line between Fair Use and Monetization lies because the wording of the law is still stuck in the analog stone age.

YouTube has long since been the wild, wild west when it comes to copyright because of all this. Everything really needs to be examined and reformed.

 

[borghe]

It's been posted several times now that this it's already affecting videos besides Let's Plays.

and really that is another issue at play here.. YouTube's actual algorithm. I mean under IP law, legally someone can do a review with an excerpt from the game and be fine. Legally a partnered site (with applicable license/permission) can run a LP video and get ad revenue from it. But then you have to take into account the content ID matching system, and law doesn't really have anything to do with it. It's Google's system, that both the IP holder and the video producers agree to. So both are kind of bound by that in how the system actually operates.

So even IF a Machinima affiliate is getting hit by this, all they can really do is go to google, say "WTF?" and then hope google acknowledges said license/agreement and adjusts things accordingly. Of course, they are not obligated to do so.. so who knows?

This situation does show why copyright law in 2013 really REALLY needs to be overhauled. There's too much grey area for the law which is really still stuck in 1998 and still doesn't really take the Internet into account at all.

I disagree with that assessment 100%. If anything, I would say that the ease of producing content and reaching a mass market is so ridiculously easy today that copyright law education and enforcement is more important than ever. Just because it's easier than ever to violate copyrights now doesn't mean we should make them less enforceable!!

Someone playing a game makes it a transitive work by definition of the Fair Use law, but no one can define where the line between Fair Use and Monetization lies because the wording of the law is still stuck in the analog stone age.

the word is transformative (transitive mean a = b, b = c, thus a = c), and it's already been discussed in this thread that playing the game is no more transformative than rerecording the audio track of a movie in its entirety (and let's be honest, that in itself is more transformative than simply playing a game)

YouTube has long since been the wild, wild west when it comes to copyright because of all this. Everything really needs to be examined and reformed.

um, no. YouTube has long been the wild west because the technology to work in this realm in an automated fashion simply didn't exist at launch. I mean hell, your very metaphor points out the problem with your point.. The wild west was problematic not because robbery and killing were all of the sudden legal and needed to be revisited, but because the system/coverage didn't exist to actually enforce the law.

 

[gngf123]

A lot of people bringing up how video editing and junk is a lot of work etc It is but....

Think about it like this, you can't upload a copy of a disney movie (the lion king) that you edited in your own commentary track / credits / cat pictures without disneys permission.

Just because you can use after effects and make funny voices doesnt give you the right to make money off of other peoples art without permission.

Sounds like you are taking their (and my) argument a little too far. I've defended Nintendo on this, but I will still call out every moron who says things like "Lets Players should just get a real job".

Mostly because to many, it is a legitimate job. They go through the correct legal proceedings, get permission, and they make their own content in addition to the content they got permission to use.

 

[PataHikari]

Not every LP'er is a massive prick who uses the game to jerk off their ego and puts little to no effort into it.

Yeah the ones that don't aren't trying to make money off youtube.

 

[eternalb]

Yeah the ones that don't aren't trying to make money off youtube.

So if you make money, you're a prick? That seems like a sound argument

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

These people can then rightfully complain about the implementation of the system but not about the steps Nintendo is taking in general. I'm not following it on Twitter but what are they complaining about?

YouTube implementation will not change, they just cannot have someone review every video individually. Nintendo's move will only serve to remove youtube exposure. Heck even reviews which are covered under Fair Use get hit by these.

While entirely within their rights, this is a short sighted move. It baffles me people here support this action because it's only direct result will be reducing the amount of gamer-related content in YouTube.

Other companies understand that this is zero cost marketing and even mail early copies to LP'ers just like they do to press.

 

[PataHikari]

So if you make money, you're a prick? That seems like a sound argument

If you try to make money off playing video games on the internet.

Frankly it's hilariously sad that people think they can make cash based off this sort of thing.

 

[Doran902]

I never once said they had a right to make money from it. I'm saying it's more work than many people realize. People bringing up the right for people to make money from it in regards to how much work it takes are missing the point in the biggest way possible.

Yeah I edited my post. It is a shit ton of work. I've made presentations and demo reels and montages in After Effects and its a shit ton of work and requires a lot of talent to make look good.

I get it completely, I go through it on a daily basis, setting up multiple scenes and layers and lighting and rendering in Maya and editing it all in programs like after effects and then adding in an audio track is kind of like the same deal that quality LP''ers have to do for their videos.

People who are saying that they are making money by simply uploading videos of nintendo games are ignorant.

I just don't agree with a lot of people who are shitting on Nintendo.

 

[PsySal]

[deleted]

 

[PataHikari]

While entirely within their rights, this is a short sighted move. It baffles me people here support this action because it's only direct result will be reducing the amount of gamer-related content in YouTube.

How is "you can't make money off our copyrights" any more short sighted then all of copyright law .

If you want to make money? Make your own content. Don't piggy back off of other people's work.

 

[Harlock]

Very well balanced article on Verge:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/16/4...copyright-claims-to-monetize-lets-play-videos

Who owns a 'Luigi's Mansion' walkthrough video, the player or Nintendo?
Is recording a Let's Play series copying someone's content or creating a unique experience?

YouTube and Nintendo's decision to run ads against Content ID-identified videos isn't necessarily the same as making a copyright claim. YouTube has ultimate control over how to monetize a given video, as long as a content owner hasn't flagged it for removal. Let's Play videos have also long sat on murky ground. YouTube has apparently allowed monetization from Let's Play makers in the past, as long as there's commentary or something else to distinguish it from simple gameplay recording. But that may last only as long as brands aren't partnering with YouTube or enforcing Content ID rights.

Legally, the question is bigger. In some cases, playing a game would likely be treated like reading a video or listening to a song (or even recording a cover song): the game's rightsholder can control how it's shifted into other formats. But add insightful commentary or criticism, or even recontextualize the game, and players shift closer to fair use, which could provide a defense against claims of copyright infringement.

 

[Htown]

Okay let me attempt to talk about this in a way that doesn't make my brain leak out of my ears.

I'm sorry, but claiming a video of someone playing a game belongs to Nintendo is asinine. In no way does it belong to Nintendo.

Everything in the video that Nintendo created belongs to Nintendo. The art assets, the sounds, the music, etc. The fact that you record it does not give you copyright over those elements.

It's like saying that pointing a camcorder at the screen or recording something on DVR gives you the right to charge people to see it, or gives you the right to sell commercial time when you show it to somebody else.

Thinking about this for more than a half second with any sort of honest thought would show you that this has NEVER been the case for any type of audiovisual entertainment that isn't in the public domain.

It doesn't matter that it's your specific playthrough, either. I've used this example before, but you can't record commentary over a movie and then sell or monetize the movie plus commentary. You don't own the rights to the movie in that way. That's why MST3K home releases are sporadic, as they have to negotiate the rights to release those movies on disc. It's why Rifftrax sells you the audio file of the commentary only. This is not hard stuff to figure out.

People make money by using products and services other companies and government agencies provide ALL the time. People make money by driving on roads, using telephones, watching TV, browsing the internet, etc. I don't see how making money off your own gameplay videos is any different. Nintendo got their money already when the person bought the game. End of deal from that point on.

This is the worst thinking I've ever seen. You literally have to generalize everything on the planet to the level that a two-year old would be capable of in order to get this so wrong.

"Person used thing to make money. So all person can use all thing to make money." Of course, again, the second you put even a half second of rational thought into this, it all falls apart.

Driving on a road? I ...

You know what? Screw it. It's not worth it.

Your post is dumb. I'm not going to educate you back up from this kindergarten level thinking. Because that's where you are.

Nintendo is on very dangerous grounds here.

They are on rock solid ground.

I'm not going to post the images again because you people act like you can't read anyway.

 

[Refreshment.01]

This is not a question to guys with names like "NintendoSpikeRaider", i would like for honest disscussion in this case.

-Exactly how this violates copyright? The player bought the videogame legally. In many cases the audience watches and goes to his channel as much for the experience of the person playing the game as for the game itself. That is, the audince follow the person.

-How much those the top let's players make? Is it so much to Nintendo bother with the issue giving the huge free publicity they get?

-When Nintendo will start legal action against business like Gamestop, which makes millions of dollars out of second hand sales of their IP's? Yes, different cases but since they are so desperate for a cut in profits might as well go for the king.

 

[Rolf NB]

Let's Plays are free advertising for the game. Monetizing a Let's Play is an incentive -- and regularly the only reason -- to invest the time it takes to produce and release free advertising for the game. Nintendo is clamping down on free advertising for their own games.

This is one of those rare instance where "stupid" is exactly the right word to use.

 

[gngf123]

If you try to make money off playing video games on the internet.

Frankly it's hilariously sad that people think they can make cash based off this sort of thing.

I'll just quote this again:

Sounds like you are taking their (and my) argument a little too far. I've defended Nintendo on this, but I will still call out every moron who says things like "Lets Players should just get a real job".

Mostly because to many, it is a legitimate job. They go through the correct legal proceedings, get permission, and they make their own content in addition to the content they got permission to use.

Those people, who do it legitimately and well, deserve every bit of money they get. It is ridiculous that people think there is something wrong with this, even if there is absolutely something wrong with doing it without permission.

 

[Raist]

-When Nintendo will start legal action against business like Gamestop, which makes millions of dollars out of second hand sales of their IP's? Yes, different cases but since they are so desperate for a cut in profits might as well go for the king.

Yep, this. I'm betting that many people who just go for the "Well it's their IP after all" wouldn't be OK with Nintendo banning used games sales.

 

[PataHikari]

-Exactly how this violates copyright? The player bought the videogame legally. In many cases the audience watches and goes to his channel as much for the experience of the person playing the game as for the game itself. That is, the audince follow the person.

It's a derivative work based off their game. Part of Copyright includes the rights to any sort of derivative work. With general fair use exceptions like academic, criticism, parody, etc.

When Nintendo will start legal action against business like Gamestop, which makes millions of dollars out of second hand sales of their IP's? Yes, different cases but since they are so desperate for a cut in profits might as well go for the king.

This is a joke right.

Here's a tip: Selling your game doesn't violate copyright. You're not making a new copy (that's why it's called copyright. It gives you the rights to make copies). All selling something you bought does is sell that single copy to another. Nintendo already made their money off selling that copy.

 

[EleventhDoctor]

Simply because someone puts effort into any task without being asked-doesn't automatically mean they are deserved any form of compensation.

How anyone disagrees with this furthers the "entitlement" charges.

 

[PataHikari]

Let's Plays are free advertising for the game. Monetizing a Let's Play is an incentive -- and regularly the only reason -- to invest the time it takes to produce and release free advertising for the game. Nintendo is clamping down on free advertising for their own games.

This is one of those rare instance where "stupid" is exactly the right word to use.

Only when describing this post.

People do stuff all the time without monetary desires. Tons of people make Let's Plays without trying to earn any money.

 

[braves01]

This is not a question to guys with names like "NintendoSpikeRaider", i would like for honest disscussion in this case.

-Exactly how this violates copyright? The player bought the videogame legally. In many cases the audience watches and goes to his channel as much for the experience of the person playing the game as for the game itself. That is, the audince follow the person.

-How much those the top let's players make? Is it so much to Nintendo bother with the issue giving the huge free publicity they get?

-When Nintendo will start legal action against business like Gamestop, which makes millions of dollars out of second hand sales of their IP's? Yes, different cases but since they are so desperate for a cut in profits might as well go for the king.

You buy a license to use the game, you dont actually acquire absolute rights to do anything you want with it (like make copies of the game). Gamestop is only re-selling licenses. You have to mentally separate the code, images, music, etc. and the right to play it.

 

[Clockwork5]

People act as though the LPers don't have their own copyright, which they do.

They cannot obtain a copyright if they are featuring someone elses copyrighted material without the explicit permission of the publisher or the original creator of the material.

I cant use a backing track of a copyrighted song, put my own lyrics on it and obtain a legal copyright for that song as my original creation.

Heck, even if I post my cover of a copyrighted song, or lessons on how to play that song, on my YouTube channel i am technically infringing on the original artists' copyright.

Sure the LPers may have "Copyright 2013" on their channel or video but it is meaningless when it comes to the material in their video and would not hold up in court.

 

[Htown]

This is not a question to guys with names like "NintendoSpikeRaider", i would like for honest disscussion in this case.

-Exactly how this violates copyright? The player bought the videogame legally. In many cases the audience watches and goes to his channel as much for the experience of the person playing the game as for the game itself. That is, the audince follow the person.

-How much those the top let's players make? Is it so much to Nintendo bother with the issue giving the huge free publicity they get?

-When Nintendo will start legal action against business like Gamestop, which makes millions of dollars out of second hand sales of their IP's? Yes, different cases but since they are so desperate for a cut in profits might as well go for the king.

Owning a copy and owning the copyright are two different things. Used game sales and public performance are two entirely different things.

Like, I don't understand... where people are coming from.

I see if you think Nintendo should just let this sort of thing slide. Sure. That's an opinion. I think it would be better in a lot of cases.

But I don't get how people are not understanding basic shit like the difference between personal, physical property and intellectual property, and not knowing that renting out a book from a library doesn't mean you can copy it and sell it to folks, or the difference between infrastructure and services and the air you breathe and a product that people came together to make.

I feel like my mind is dying.

 

[jamesinclair]

On one hand, fuck Nintendo. On the other hand, I don't know how I feel about the guy monetizing videos of their games. I mean it's not his material so why should he be able to make money? You can't make a movie commentary and sell it showing the whole movie.

Shut down ign and gamespot they're making money off Nintendo during video reviews

 

[PataHikari]

You buy a license to use the game, you dont actually acquire rights to do anything you want with it. Gamestop is only re-selling licenses. You have to mentally separate the code, images, music, etc. and the right to play it.

This is wrong and dumb too.

When I buy a game, I am buying a copy of that game. I'm not buying a licence.

I can't make new copies of that game and sell them because I don't have the copyright to it.

 

[LiK]

If you try to make money off playing video games on the internet.

Frankly it's hilariously sad that people think they can make cash based off this sort of thing.

Giant Bomb and GameFront

 

[EleventhDoctor]

Shut down ign and gamespot they're making money off Nintendo during video reviews

 

[PataHikari]

Giant Bomb

Giant Bomb is a journalist site they are performing criticism. Their "quick looks" are just a novel way of presenting it.

 

[NTom64]

This is not a question to guys with names like "NintendoSpikeRaider", i would like for honest disscussion in this case.

-Exactly how this violates copyright? The player bought the videogame legally. In many cases the audience watches and goes to his channel as much for the experience of the person playing the game as for the game itself. That is, the audince follow the person.

-How much those the top let's players make? Is it so much to Nintendo bother with the issue giving the huge free publicity they get?

-When Nintendo will start legal action against business like Gamestop, which makes millions of dollars out of second hand sales of their IP's? Yes, different cases but since they are so desperate for a cut in profits might as well go for the king.

It's kind of hard to tell based on views how much a person makes (adblock and all that jazz), but the final content is split between the partner company and the content creator. The final percentage cut varies between companies (for some it's 70/30, for me it's 50/50). The top name LP'ers, it'd be a fair amount. Nowhere near as much as SocialBlade and other sites make it, though. Using that is a suckers game. It once said I'd earned $500 in a month and I just laughed and laughed and laughed.

It's a very vague system. I've been doing this for a few years now and even I still have trouble with the specifics.

 

[Velcro Fly]

Pretty sure Giant Bomb has an agreement in place anyway.

 

[Foffy]

If you try to make money off playing video games on the internet.

Frankly it's hilariously sad that people think they can make cash based off this sort of thing.

The world has tons of people making money in ways you and I can find bullshitty. I think the world should embrace and support people who make society function in more applicable ways like making sure street lights work than pooling all of that money into stuff that's fluff, like baseball players. What you'll only be doing is headbutting a wall with what you value as meaningful and important to what the masses think.

We can argue which is more genuine, which is more worth true value, but the best I can tell you is to ignore how others live, and live how you want. You'll only meet frustration and annoyance seeing others living in ways or circumstances you don't find acceptable. Don't laugh at others for their choices, find validation in yours. I have nothing particularly against those who want to make money off of playing games, that's fine. I personally think human potential can go far beyond that disposable shit. But it's up to the self - in this case, the other - to validate that for themselves.

Sorry for the pseudo-philosophical jargon, but there have been quite a few posts so far in this thread targeting "real" work. I think the legal grounds in this matter are clear cut, but people are simply targeting the concept of it in such a hostile way. I don't think that's valid. Legally it seems like they're leeching off the back of more hard working people that actually make the products, but in many cases, particularly with indies, these types of videos are heavily supported and embraced. It is a very grey area with games, like fan translations. The work is owned by a company who have say on the matter, but an unrelated party makes something out of it, and legally, the owner has 100% reigns to put a noose over it. There is no wiggle room on this shit, it is that clear cut..

This is wrong and dumb too.

When I buy a game, I am buying a copy of that game. I'm not buying a licence.

I can't make new copies of that game and sell them because I don't have the copyright to it.

You don't read the EULA, do you? With game software, it is a license...because it's physical doesn't mean shit in terms of legality. I think it's dumb, but it's true. And especially so when companies want to nix physical media to get the grey "middle man" out of the equation.

 

[snap0212]

YouTube implementation will not change, they just cannot have someone review every video individually. Nintendo's move will only serve to remove youtube exposure. Heck even reviews which are covered under Fair Use get hit by these.

I'd think the amount of channels that actually have permission is pretty small. YouTube should be able to just whitelist them.

While entirely within their rights, this is a short sighted move. It baffles me people here support this action because it's only direct result will be reducing the amount of gamer-related content in YouTube.

Other companies understand that this is zero cost marketing and even mail early copies to LP'ers just like they do to press.

I think I might sound very negative simply because Nintendo is well within their rights and the Let's Players never were and instead of admitting that they've had a good run, people complain about it left and right.

It comes down to this: Let's Players never had the right to upload the gameplay footage and monetize. Complaining about how it's actually being enforced now is childish. We'll see if the content decreases or not. This might not be a entirely bad thing. Small channels will now get more attention, new talent will be discovered and new let's players get the chance to prove themselves.

 

[LiK]

Giant Bomb is a journalist site they are performing criticism. Their "quick looks" are just a novel way of presenting it.

Most of their premium videos are just them playing games. They don't critique anything.

Pretty sure Giant Bomb has an agreement in place anyway.

Simply responding that people do make money from playing video games and posting videos of them.

 

[braves01]

Owning a copy and owning the copyright are two different things. Used game sales and public performance are two entirely different things.

Like, I don't understand... where people are coming from.

I see if you think Nintendo should just let this sort of thing slide. Sure. That's an opinion. I think it would be better in a lot of cases.

But I don't get how people are not understanding basic shit like the difference between personal, physical property and intellectual property, and not knowing that renting out a book from a library doesn't mean you can copy it and sell it to folks, or the difference between infrastructure and services and the air you breathe and a product that people came together to make.

I feel like my mind is dying.

LOL. This thread has been going in circles since it was posted. No sense in reposting youtube tos, 17 usc whatever, or anything else. It will only be forgotten and ignored by the next page.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

If you try to make money off playing video games on the internet.

Frankly it's hilariously sad that people think they can make cash based off this sort of thing.

I think it's hilariously sad how ignorant you are.

WoodysGamertag is a guy with a wife and two kids, one of them being autistic. Now, let me make this clear: personally, I don't like Woody's content, but you have to recognize what he's done. Woody said when he started YouTube, he had over $45,000 in medical bills for his son's condition. He's become a superstar on YouTube. With that, he paid off his son's entire medical debt and is able to get him better treatment now than he ever has. He also now has enough money for his daughter to complete college without having to take out one loan. He quit his programming job at Cisco because of what he brings in on YouTube. And he did this all on the basis of being a PERSONALITY, not just a dude who plays Call of Duty. He's never been anything more than average at Call of Duty. He's gotten to the point now because he was such an engaging personality, he could just stare at a webcam and get 100,000 views now. Call of Duty was just his jumping off point: what pulled it together was his ability to be an engaging personality and connect with his audience so well. He also did this by being a stellar businessman, negotiating the right partnership (and again with IGN after the Machinima cuts), affiliate marketing programs, and other very astute things.

So, yeah, people are making real, sustainable money doing this stuff. And guess what? He's not the only one at all.

 

[borghe]

Let's Plays are free advertising for the game. Monetizing a Let's Play is an incentive -- and regularly the only reason -- to invest the time it takes to produce and release free advertising for the game. Nintendo is clamping down on free advertising for their own games.

eh, people are walking a very fine line by calling this advertising/promotion. At it's core, the biggest problem with calling it advertising/promotion is that Nintendo has no control over its production... That alone leads me to believe calling it advertising/promotion isn't exactly correct.

 

[lenovox1]

Yep, this. I'm betting that many people who just go for the "Well it's their IP after all" wouldn't be OK with Nintendo banning used games sales.

First sale doctrine.

Nintendo holds the right to distribute its own material, but after its sold...

But that just applies to the disc. You do not own the programming, characters, music, levels, or anything of the sort once you buy the disc. That stuff belongs to Nintendo. You are also not allowed to reproduce anything that is on that authorized copy (the disc).

 

[Why would you do that?]

Spoken straight from someone who has obviously never done a quality Let's Play if you think it takes "little effort".

Yes, that's correct. I can't say that I have experience in making Let's Plays or podcasts, but based on the ones I've seen, I can't look at them and say that it takes more than 6 work hours for a one hour video. Just record footage with people you have a good group dynamic with, then make the cuts and mix and master the audio.

(Feel free to show me examples of high quality ones to prove me wrong, though. I am not really a LP watcher, so maybe I only saw low quality ones.)