Support NeoGAF

[Haunted]

Really? There wouldn't be any Nintendo content for let's players to stream if Nintendo hadn't made the content in the first place. Let a let's player post their voiceover of gameplay as a standalone video, and watch how many people would flock to watch it (hint: probably zero).

While people can argue about how much value the average Youtuber adds to the content (I'd argue that yelling bad jokes over gameplay doesn't contribute much to the equation, which is the most common form of popular let's play content out there), in the end, the content only exists because the game developer created the base content to work from. I think it's fair to allow those developers to decide whether they should receive compensation for streaming of their content. I think it's awesome that many companies out there allow full streaming of any of their games without requesting revenue, but I don't think it's a bad thing to allow the copyright holders to ask for a piece.

If Youtubers don't add much value to the content, commentary-less videos of gameplay would be just as popular as Pewdiepie playing through a game.

That's not the case, so clearly a lot of people are putting value on the commentators and presenters, whether it's a muted, knowledgeable Let's Player, an over the top reaction to horror-type video or 4 people on a couch interacting with chat while they're streaming videogames.

I also think it's awesome that many companies allow full streaming of any of their games without requesting revenue, and I think Nintendo - especially considering their current market/mindshare in the console business - should value eyeballs on their content much more than making some pocket money by taking it from Youtube video creators, whether they're legally entitled to do so or not.

 

[Of All Trades]

Reviews fall under fair use and wouldn't need to be an affiliate. The problem is in the Youtube's system known as ContentID, which scans the millions of new youtube videos uploaded every day and compares them to copyrighted material. If it detects a match then it will either delete the video or change the monetisation settings (depending on what the copyright holder has said). However, due to the volume of material, the system is automated, meaning that it can be prone to flagging material that shouldn't infringe.

So under the wrong circumstances, a review can be flagged by the system. The uploader is then able to dispute the claim and try to get it sorted (but this unfortunately takes time). The system is far from perfect in this regard, and definitely needs an overhaul to allow for faster disputes (as well as back payments for lost revenue).

One would think then that the correct stance would be that until these issues are sorted out revenue should automatically favor the user and not the multinational megacorporation. Further, one would think that Nintendo and their mythical image control terrors would distance themselves from automatically profiting off of uncontrolled content; a mashup of tomadachi life and a Phelps protest could be critically read in a lot of ways and some of them look very unfavorable to Nintendo if, regardless of the intent of the video, they are still profiting off the proliferation of the Westboro Church's website.

 

[Guest12345678]

The Content ID system only works with whatever media Nintendo defines is theirs. They defined their own trailers as copyright data and they pulled the trigger on this. Google's system is far from flawless but it's a weapon that is harmless on its own unless you pull the trigger. Nintendo pulled the trigger, they have no one to blame for this but themselves.

I think both are to blame, since youtube's content ID system is far to unreliable as it is and nintendo should know that and not use it. My point is that I don't think Nintendo believes they should be able to monetize a 3 hour podcast because a 2 min trailer appeared in it.

 

[Guest12345678]

Reviews and commentary are or can be transformative works, as far as I'm aware, and are often monetized. So are you saying that if transformative works are monetized they should only be able to show a product in a positive light?

I'm not really referring to entire game uploads/Let's Plays [which I don't know whether would be classed transformative works].

But for instance a voice-over 5 minute video review over gameplay, which runs banner ads. Or if I wanted to produce Tropes vs Men and was voicing commentary over segments of gameplay from a variety of games and critiquing them.

I should also note, I don't need to use any copyrighted material to affect someone's business - so as something of an aside - are you advocating that some sort of control should be exerted over that behavior as well?

I think it would be stupid to argue that nintendo has a right to monetize/remove monetization of works that critique them. It creates such and obvious space for corruption.

edit: shit posted twice.

 

[wildfire]

While my post was more based on providing a counterpoint to the "LPs are free advertising" argument, I think that your points seem to be indicate a scope beyond LPs and more into fair use in general. I'd still be happy to share my opinions though (not that my opinions should count for much).

Well the whole content ID claiming situation affects everybody. There is no discrimination.

Since you were thinking of different scopes this is how I would break down various groups.


1)Let's players - strictly gameplay (story lines are minimal or non existent)

2) Let's Players - Story is prominant

3) Reviewers

4) Parody Performances/Critiques

5) Tournaments

6) Discussion Panels

Every youtube video is scanned for the following parameters

A) Audio Content

B) Video Content

So one problem that comes up is what are publishers selling to us? Art assets, music? Isn't it strictly games?

I would say no they don't strictly sell games. People do buy art assets in the form of collectors items and music as separate tracks.

But what makes a game a product you want to buy is how you interact with it. YOutubers aren't infringing on this interaction. They aren't reverse engineering software. The games aren't being properly experienced as intended through watching them on a video.

So while art and music can be protected the case for videogames is a lot weaker because people typically aren't buying them just for those 2 things.


This is no different from the court case I linked to earlier in this thread about Google scanning and uploading entire books.

Google was protected by fair use even though they are making money off of those scans because they only allow people to read a portion of the uploaded material. They aren't getting the full experience that is intended by publishers and authors.

With that clarified

1) Are protected under Fair Use. The most obvious example of how their works can be transformative performances are speed runners. Speed runners look for flaws in the games systems to drastically reduce play time beyond what is intended.


2) Shouldn't be protected. The most obvious example are Adventure games. These point and click affairs are extremely light on interaction. They are still games but you buy these games so much more for their story more than anything else.

3) Are protected. You already agree with this.

4. Are protected. This is no different from reviews. They are providing an analysis but the scope of that commentary is framed by the game in question.

5) I'm not 100% sure on this one but I believe every major sports organization paids a licensing fee to the inventors of the sport and continue to pay a fee to their families' foundations. Considering that all tournaments are paid for by the players until they grow so big to attract an audience it makes sense for the tournaments to not be protected under fair use because they are having their initial consumer base are the players themselves. This one really needs to be examined heavily though.

6) Are protected for the same reasons as 3 and 4.

Yet all of these videos are being claimed.

So I guess that overall, my stance is that if something would fall under fair use then of course the original copyright holder does not deserve compensation. However, if it doesn't fall under fair use then some sort of licensing agreement should be met. The only reason why all this is a contentious issue is because there is no legal precedent for Let's Plays yet. I think that answers your questions?

That answers it. I disagree that legal precedence doesn't exist even for Let's Players but this mess is so big it's obvious that more than Let's Players are being affected.

 

[Cipherr]

This is Nintendo wanting a piece of the pie instead of treating yt content about their games as free advertising.

Is this better than denying content creators any kind of monetization? Yes. Is it worse than just letting them do their thing and monetise videos while advertising Nintendo games? Also yes.

I don't think this is that great.


edit: not singling out Nintendo here, you can include every other videogame company with similar plans and a strategy to deny content creators full revenue in that criticism.

This is as good as youtube players or game streamers are going to get.

I'm sorry, but grow up and realize that content rights exist no matter how much you want them not too. Its either a compromise like this, or we watch lets plays and video game streaming fucking DIE, because you are absolutely NOT entitled to the ability to monetize a stream content/music that belongs to someone else in most cases.

People need to get that through their heads. I absolutely love Lets Plays and game streaming, but you either get permission or some sort of agreement to work with someone elses content or you don't. If you cannot accept that reality then feel free to lobby the lawmakers to change things and keep us apprised on how it goes. But as for me, I hope this works and spreads like fucking wildfire through all game publishers and the music labels so Twitch, Youtube, Hitbox and more can fucking thrive instead of being throttled.

No respect for anyone who sees progress like this and wants to shit on it because you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. That's a ridiculously destructive mindset.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Unless you are doing it for fun, I don't think it is worth doing videos on nintendo. You are barely going to make any money after everyone gets their cut unless you are quite popular.

 

[thewhitehawk]

I think both are to blame, since youtube's content ID system is far to unreliable as it is and nintendo should know that and not use it. My point is that I don't think Nintendo believes they should be able to monetize a 3 hour podcast because a 2 min trailer appeared in it.

And what exactly leads you to believe that? Is there any sort of slight reason why that might not have been Nintendo's intention, or are you making up excuses for them?

 

[Mr. Luchador]

First tweet is basically Nintendo saying they've ID Tagged all their recent content, which will get ads for Nintendo.

Second tweet is them saying that they're gonna have an agressive affiliate program, to share ad revenues with video content creators. More details to follow soon.

The way it should be, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Yoshi]

That's not the case, so clearly a lot of people are putting value on the commentators and presenters, whether it's a muted, knowledgeable Let's Player, an over the top reaction to horror-type video or 4 people on a couch interacting with chat while they're streaming videogames.

If I look something up on Youtube about a game, I'm always annoyed that there is that horrible commentary and mute the video. However, most of the time I do look up Let's Plays with commentary, because how do I find ones without commentary?

 

[thewhitehawk]

The way it should be, as far as I'm concerned.

So you like the idea that independent video creators will now be forced to partner with Nintendo and Nintendo will not only control their revenue but hold the ability to take down any video they deem as unfit to represent them or their products and you like the idea that content creators will receive even less money for their videos than they'd get otherwise and can't even barely mention Nintendo products without getting copyright claims and losing all revenue for that video regardless of how relevant or long the ID'd part is in relation to the rest of the content.

This may not be what you had in mind when you said "it's the way it should be", but I guarantee you the impact of this aggressive behaviour will be negative to both Nintendo and consumers. I'd argue that it already is given how poorly the Wii U is selling and how few of the gaming channels I follow on Youtube post anything Nintendo-related.

 

[TheAssist]

I still think its unfair for youtubers who want to make a living with their videos.

Imagine you specialize on Nintendo IP's for your channel. I dont know how much money you get from youtube, but say you are really popular and get a few hundred dollars a month. At least a healthy amount of your monthly earnings on which you depend.

Now Nintendo comes along and wants a cut. That means a few hundred dollars per month less for you, which could ruin your whole existence as a youtuber, while nintendo doesnt gain anything from that money, its nothing for them.

I can understand that they want control, its their ip, if its good practice or not, but forcing lets players to pay you for creating content will only result in less people creating that content.

 

[TitusGroan]

I still think its unfair for youtubers who want to make a living with their videos.

Wanting to make a living on videos and having the ability to do so are very different things. I'm sure most of us would love to be able to make a living playing videogames, but it's an opportunity most of us won't get.

People with talent who make Youtube videos that are creative and different will always be able to make money. Even outside the ad revenue model, things like Patreon exist that allow creative people to earn money for making videos. People who just want to talk boring shite about nothing in particular while playing a videogame won't be able to make a living, but fair enough. If it encourages more creativity and ingenuity, then I'm all for it. After all, we're allegedly watching these LPs for the video hosts anyway. Let's see them start to think outside the box a little.

Imagine you specialize on Nintendo IP's for your channel. I dont know how much money you get from youtube, but say you are really popular and get a few hundred dollars a month. At least a healthy amount of your monthly earnings on which you depend.

Now Nintendo comes along and wants a cut. That means a few hundred dollars per month less for you, which could ruin your whole existence as a youtuber, while nintendo doesnt gain anything from that money, its nothing for them.

Imagine you're a radio DJ specializing in rock music. People tune into your channel to hear you talk and blather about various things. At the same time, you also play a lot of classic rock records.

Now Led Zeppelin come along and want a cut for you playing their records. That means a royalty payment everytime you play one of their songs. And not just Zeppelin. Every band you play, when you play their song, wants a royalty. That's thousands of dollars a month in royalty payments.

Thing is, that's how it works. radio DJs don't get out of paying royalties by claiming they're doing Zeppelin's advertising for them, and that their listeners tune in to listen to them anyway. They use bands material, they pay them their money.

 

[RagnarokX]

Well one problem with the idea that Nintendo should just accept youtube videos as "free advertising" is that people can just watch videos instead of buying the games. Nobody would reasonably argue that you should be free to upload entire movies and make a money off of them so long as you provide commentary. Sure games are an interactive medium, but people can get enough of a vicarious experience through videos to not want the game.

 

[TheSlySoul]

The main problem is Youtube's Content ID system sucks since it searches for one minute of Nintendo audio. This means a trailer gets the same claim as a long play.
Many companies should be happy with free advertising IMO. You get the same experience with music/movies, but not for games. I sometimes look up playthroughs to figure out a place that I get stuck. If Nintendo wants money, they should treat Nintendo Youtubers like JWittz much nicer than they currently do.

 

[Nicktendo86]

This is as good as youtube players or game streamers are going to get.

I'm sorry, but grow up and realize that content rights exist no matter how much you want them not too. Its either a compromise like this, or we watch lets plays and video game streaming fucking DIE, because you are absolutely NOT entitled to the ability to monetize a stream content/music that belongs to someone else in most cases.

People need to get that through their heads. I absolutely love Lets Plays and game streaming, but you either get permission or some sort of agreement to work with someone elses content or you don't. If you cannot accept that reality then feel free to lobby the lawmakers to change things and keep us apprised on how it goes. But as for me, I hope this works and spreads like fucking wildfire through all game publishers and the music labels so Twitch, Youtube, Hitbox and more can fucking thrive instead of being throttled.

No respect for anyone who sees progress like this and wants to shit on it because you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. That's a ridiculously destructive mindset.

Fantastic post, I wonder what planet people are on sometimes.

 

[wildfire]

Well one problem with the idea that Nintendo should just accept youtube videos as "free advertising" is that people can just watch videos instead of buying the games. Nobody would reasonably argue that you should be free to upload entire movies and make a money off of them so long as you provide commentary. Sure games are an interactive medium, but people can get enough of a vicarious experience through videos to not want the game.

Outside of point to click games you are exaggerating how much story trumps gameplay.

It isn't a proper substitute to watch a campaign or tournament.

 

[BY2K]

Outside of point to click games you are exaggerating how much story trumps gameplay.

It isn't a proper substitute to watch a campaign or tournament.

For some people, it is. Not enough to say it affects sales negatively in a significant way, but it happens.

 

[Metal B]

People with talent who make Youtube videos that are creative and different will always be able to make money. Even outside the ad revenue model, things like Patreon exist that allow creative people to earn money for making videos. People who just want to talk boring shite about nothing in particular while playing a videogame won't be able to make a living, but fair enough. If it encourages more creativity and ingenuity, then I'm all for it. After all, we're allegedly watching these LPs for the video hosts anyway. Let's see them start to think outside the box a little.

This is actually the idea behind "Free Use". An artist take something familiar and creating something different. It protects works like Andy Warhol Pop-Art prints, who uses popular images and creates something complete new with it. Or people who want to critic, educate or warn people about a work, but then this has to be the main effort.

People, who think that playing a game already changes it, they know nothing about games and the developing of them. Everything you do, feel, experience or think was designed to happen to you from the developers. If a puzzle feels frustrating or beating a boss makes you feel unstoppable, then because the developers wanted it too be. Even if you find a trick or strategy, there is chance the developers let it in there.

Take the Angry Video Game Nerd. The main focus aren't the games anymore, but the persona playing it. How he reacts to something, his gesture, his words, his mind, etc. James Rolfe also cuts the video, creates sketches, effects, characters, a set-design and most importantly acts. The games are only a connecting element of the Angry Video Game Nerd Show. There goes a lot of work into it and the games become just a part of it. That's also why "Free Use" should protect him.

A normal Let's Player doesn't do anything of it. Here the main focus is on the game. We only see a person consume a game. If the Angry Video Game Nerd reacts to a situation of a game, he creates a scene separate from the game and most often not even showing the screen. If a Let's Player reacts, he does, what the developers wanted to happen, always in focus on the game. James Rolfe can be very close at the line of the "Free Use"-law sometimes, but it still clear, that he created something different from the games.

Well one problem with the idea that Nintendo should just accept youtube videos as "free advertising" is that people can just watch videos instead of buying the games. Nobody would reasonably argue that you should be free to upload entire movies and make a money off of them so long as you provide commentary. Sure games are an interactive medium, but people can get enough of a vicarious experience through videos to not want the game.

I think the main problem, is that a company wants to be ask first and not be told, what should be good for them. Those companies build strategies, have connects, artistically ideals, brand protection or other reason, why they want to control there property. If i make a picture of a you and use it in a commercial. Would you be ok with it? Technical i make you famous! You should be glad being the face of a sexually transmitted disease campaign!

 

[ebullientprism]

Unless you are doing it for fun, I don't think it is worth doing videos on nintendo. You are barely going to make any money after everyone gets their cut unless you are quite popular.

Pretty much. Make a video for anyone else, youtube takes a cut and you get the rest.

Make it for Nintendo and you are paying Nintendo out of your end.

Why bother then? Just avoid Nintendo completely. If you arent a Nintendo exclusive YT LPer then at best you miss out on 2-3 games a year.

Wonder how NIntendo plan on handling Twitch.

 

[BassForever]

Surprised it took this long, seems like a fair deal for people who want to LP and review games

 

[JonathanEx]

Here's an aside rather than a fully formed thought or argument.

If you as a creator are upset and wonder why Nintendo should get money from free advertising, why should um, you consider it advertising? Surely if you're willing to use that word to describe your own works there's something to question?

Other people saying it, well that's a bit different. But it's just something that struck me.

 

[KojiKnight]

Surprised it took this long, seems like a fair deal for people who want to LP and review games

Quite a few companies already have something like this in place (not just gaming, record labels and such). The thing is the details are sparse, and the amount of cut Nintendo wants will have an effect, as will if they'd be even willing to do business with small LPers or only networks.

Here's an aside rather than a fully formed thought or argument.

If you as a creator are upset and wonder why Nintendo should get money from free advertising, why should um, you consider it advertising? Surely if you're willing to use that word to describe your own works there's something to question?

Other people saying it, well that's a bit different. But it's just something that struck me.

I'm personally not against Nintendo getting a cut and while I said "free advertising" earlier in the thread, I'm fully aware what the difference between REAL advertising is and what me and my fellow LPers do. LPers are within their right to simply not LP Nintendo games if they want (if I can get any reasonable cut, I'll resume doing Nintendo games) but Nintendo is within their right to protect their IP.

 

[BY2K]

Quite a few companies already have something like this in place (not just gaming, record labels and such).

Really? Who?

 

[wildfire]

For some people, it is. Not enough to say it affects sales nagatively in a significant way, but it happens.

That's why I said he was exaggerating. We are inn agreement here essentially.

 

[M3d10n]

I'm not sure the transformative argument doesn't hold much ground. For example, are you entitled to sell videos of yourself doing a dance performance to someone's else music without licensing it somehow?

 

[Cincaid]

Right or wrong, Nintendo sure are getting a lot of bad publicity from this at least.

Pewdiepie (2.93 million followers on Twitter, 27+ million subscribers on YouTube):

I want to like Nintendo but they're making it so hard lately..

Boogie2928 (102k followers on Twitter, 1.8 million subscribers on YouTube):

The LAST fucking thing I'm going to do for @NintendoAmerica is PAY THEM to allow me to ADVERTISE their games for them. Fuck... That.

thaRadBrad (151k followers on Twitter, 2.8 million subscribers on YouTube):

Didn’t realize Nintendo was so desperate they felt the need to take money from honest content creators on YouTube.

 

[Riki]

Right or wrong, Nintendo sure are getting a lot of bad publicity from this at least.

Pewdiepie (2.93 million followers on Twitter, 27+ million subscribers on YouTube):


Boogie2928 (102k followers on Twitter, 1.8 million subscribers on YouTube):


thaRadBrad (151k followers on Twitter, 2.8 million subscribers on YouTube):

Dat entitlement.
You're not advertising their games. Sorry. You're playing them for entertainment.
If you're not doing it for the entertainment value then you're in a failing business.
No one has the inherant right to make money off of some else's work. Plain and simple.

 

[Tripon]

Right or wrong, Nintendo sure are getting a lot of bad publicity from this at least.

Pewdiepie (2.93 million followers on Twitter, 27+ million subscribers on YouTube):


Boogie2928 (102k followers on Twitter, 1.8 million subscribers on YouTube):


thaRadBrad (151k followers on Twitter, 2.8 million subscribers on YouTube):

Here the thing, Nintendo doesn't want PewPieDie to advertise in the first place.

 

[KojiKnight]

Really? Who?

http://www.freedom.tm/community/threads/what-royalty-free-music-may-i-use.2045/

A list of music companies/producers who have a deal with Freedom! (a popular Youtube MCN). While I don't know the exact terms of the deal, they get either a flat fee or a portion of videos that there music is used in as part of the network.

Right or wrong, Nintendo sure are getting a lot of bad publicity from this at least.

Pewdiepie (2.93 million followers on Twitter, 27+ million subscribers on YouTube):


Boogie2928 (102k followers on Twitter, 1.8 million subscribers on YouTube):


thaRadBrad (151k followers on Twitter, 2.8 million subscribers on YouTube):

As mentioned above... that entitlement. I'd love in Nintendo let me used their games with out any licensing fees (or a very modest cut) but yeah... those are slightly over the top...

Of the three, Pewdiepie's is at least not insulting to Nintendo.

 

[RiggyRob]

Right or wrong, Nintendo sure are getting a lot of bad publicity from this at least.

Pewdiepie (2.93 million followers on Twitter, 27+ million subscribers on YouTube):


Boogie2928 (102k followers on Twitter, 1.8 million subscribers on YouTube):


thaRadBrad (151k followers on Twitter, 2.8 million subscribers on YouTube):

If that's their reaction to this announcement, then they're not that discerning - previously they didn't get anything from Nintendo, now they'll get a cut. Like someone mentioned, Nintendo can't win either way.

Edit: I'd be interested to know how many of the three YouTubers above actually have videos made with Nintendo games.

 

[PhoenixDawn]

It's a bit of a slippery slope argument, but I'm sure those Youtubers wouldn't be OK with someone rehosting their videos on their own channels and just adding a few banners/side comments while taking in all of the profit. ("free advertising", right?) I know video editing can be a time consuming task, but they shouldn't feel so entitled to make 100% of the profit off of something where a large majority of the content comes directly from the work of someone else.

 

[TitusGroan]

Jesus fuck me Christ...

How is Nintendo getting a cut of LP footage any different to musicians getting a cut from radio play? What is the big stink here that Youtubers are so upset about potentially giving up some money to the copyright owners? "Advertising"? Last I bloody heard, companies organised their own advertising.

If you're defence for not wanting to essentially pay royalties is "But it's advertising" then you've basically outed yourself as a shill.

As a thought experiment: If I were to go on Deviantart and take a particularly striking image that was to my liking, set it as the backdrop to a Youtube video, then add twenty minutes of my own rambling, would I be allowed to get upset if the artist I took the picture from then pointed out I'd used the image without permission? Would I be allowed to throw a huff if they had the temerity to ask for a cut of the ad revenue as a royalty for using their image?

Spoiler

Because I remember Anita Sarkeesian not so long ago getting blasted by the gaming community for using an artist's picture without permission or payment in a Youtube video, and I would sure love to know what the difference is.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Right or wrong, Nintendo sure are getting a lot of bad publicity from this at least.

Pewdiepie (2.93 million followers on Twitter, 27+ million subscribers on YouTube):


Boogie2928 (102k followers on Twitter, 1.8 million subscribers on YouTube):


thaRadBrad (151k followers on Twitter, 2.8 million subscribers on YouTube):

I though that Boogie2928 doesnt make lets plays , as for pewdiepie, well , the games he plays couldnt be more different from what nintendo makes

 

[Wiktor]

That's a pretty efficent way to limit LPs of Nintendo games.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Jesus fuck me Christ...

How is Nintendo getting a cut of LP footage any different to musicians getting a cut from radio play? What is the big stink here that Youtubers are so upset about potentially giving up some money to the copyright owners? "Advertising"? Last I bloody heard, companies organised their own advertising.

If you're defence for not wanting to essentially pay royalties is "But it's advertising" then you've basically outed yourself as a shill.

As a thought experiment: If I were to go on Deviantart and take a particularly striking image that was to my liking, set it as the backdrop to a Youtube video, then add twenty minutes of my own rambling, would I be allowed to get upset if the artist I took the picture from then pointed out I'd used the image without permission? Would I be allowed to throw a huff if they had the temerity to ask for a cut of the ad revenue as a royalty for using their image?

Spoiler

Because I remember Anita Sarkeesian not so long ago getting blasted by the gaming community for using an artist's picture without permission or payment in a Youtube video, and I would sure love to know what the difference is.

I'm actually considering taking these people's Let's Play videos and playing them in the background as I talk over them.

 

[Raist]

Jesus fuck me Christ...

How is Nintendo getting a cut of LP footage any different to musicians getting a cut from radio play? What is the big stink here that Youtubers are so upset about potentially giving up some money to the copyright owners? "Advertising"? Last I bloody heard, companies organised their own advertising.

If you're defence for not wanting to essentially pay royalties is "But it's advertising" then you've basically outed yourself as a shill.

As a thought experiment: If I were to go on Deviantart and take a particularly striking image that was to my liking, set it as the backdrop to a Youtube video, then add twenty minutes of my own rambling, would I be allowed to get upset if the artist I took the picture from then pointed out I'd used the image without permission? Would I be allowed to throw a huff if they had the temerity to ask for a cut of the ad revenue as a royalty for using their image?

Spoiler

Because I remember Anita Sarkeesian not so long ago getting blasted by the gaming community for using an artist's picture without permission or payment in a Youtube video, and I would sure love to know what the difference is.

Because there's quite a difference between someone playing a game and (potentially) commenting on it, or making it entertaining or whatever, and listening to music. One of them is basically the exact same experience you'd get by buying the product, the other one clearly isn't. As for the whole legal thing, I wonder to which extent this doesn't simply fall into the "fair use" waiver to a copyright.

What next, if you want to invite a bunch of friends to play a new game they don't own, you should ask for an authorization or something? Maybe pay a fee?
And the whole "affiliate" program is shady as fuck, because it reeks of control issues and potential biases.

All this happens while PC gamers have been streaming stuff for ages, and with Nintendo's competitors now happily integrating a function within the OS to allow you to stream on twitch or other platforms that they don't own.

 

[BY2K]

Mario Kart 8 let's you upload footage to Youtube.

 

[KojiKnight]

Mario Kart 8 let's you upload footage to Youtube.

And under the current system, if they are flagged Nintendo will claim ads on them. Though I think this system is partially WHY nintendo is looking at revenue sharing.

 

[Penguin]

Because there's quite a difference between someone playing a game and (potentially) commenting on it, or making it entertaining or whatever, and listening to music. One of them is basically the exact same experience you'd get by buying the product, the other one clearly isn't. As for the whole legal thing, I wonder to which extent this doesn't simply fall into the "fair use" waiver to a copyright.

What next, if you want to invite a bunch of friends to play a new game they don't own, you should ask for an authorization or something? Maybe pay a fee?
And the whole "affiliate" program is shady as fuck, because it reeks of control issues and potential biases.

All this happens while PC gamers have been streaming stuff for ages, and with Nintendo's competitors now happily integrating a function within the OS to allow you to stream on twitch or other platforms that they don't own.

What about paying to use your music in a movie or television show? You are turning it into something different and creative, but you still need to pay for it?

Also, can you make money off of streaming from Xbox One or PS4? (Serious question, I don't know)

 

[TitusGroan]

Because there's quite a difference between someone playing a game and (potentially) commenting on it, or making it entertaining or whatever, and listening to music. One of them is basically the exact same experience you'd get by buying the product, the other one clearly isn't.

Unless you're talking about some crazy new game that is nothing but procedurally generated content, that's not true. The majority of games are designed with every possible interaction in mind. They have to be, in order to be QA'd and to stop players from breaking the game, running into invisible walls or falling through the floor. Someone playing Smash or 3D World isn't generating never before seen content, they're playing with the game how the developers intended them to.

What next, if you want to invite a bunch of friends to play a new game they don't own, you should ask for an authorization or something? Maybe pay a fee?

Do you regularly try and monetize friends coming over your house? I don't think that's called friendship. There's another word for making money off companionship...

And the whole "affiliate" program is shady as fuck, because it reeks of control issues and potential biases.

It's basic copyright protection. Heck, it's not even that. It's Nintendo asking for a royalty when one of their games gets monetized on Youtube.

Again, how is this in any way different to when an artist calls out a Youtube personality for not following correct copyright procedure, and using their work without permission?

 

[Raist]

Mario Kart 8 let's you upload footage to Youtube.

30secs clips that you can't really edit, or comment on, or anything. It's rather restricted/controlled.

 

[KojiKnight]

Because there's quite a difference between someone playing a game and (potentially) commenting on it, or making it entertaining or whatever, and listening to music. One of them is basically the exact same experience you'd get by buying the product, the other one clearly isn't. As for the whole legal thing, I wonder to which extent this doesn't simply fall into the "fair use" waiver to a copyright.

What next, if you want to invite a bunch of friends to play a new game they don't own, you should ask for an authorization or something? Maybe pay a fee?
And the whole "affiliate" program is shady as fuck, because it reeks of control issues and potential biases.

All this happens while PC gamers have been streaming stuff for ages, and with Nintendo's competitors now happily integrating a function within the OS to allow you to stream on twitch or other platforms that they don't own.

#1: His example wasn't great, a better example is using licensed music in a movie. No one watches a movie for the licensed music alone (sans musicals maybe). They have to pay for the rights to the music, this is a similar suggestion.

#2: Riot (League of Legends) has a list of do and do nots for sharing footage of their games on youtube or they will pull them down. This isn't a console versus PC argument... This is a "different companies do things differently".

 

[RiggyRob]

30secs clips that you can't really edit, or comment on, or anything. It's rather restricted/controlled.

Mario Kart 8 lets you upload a replay of the whole race, and indeed people who got the game early have been doing.

 

[lewisgone]

Jesus fuck me Christ...

How is Nintendo getting a cut of LP footage any different to musicians getting a cut from radio play? What is the big stink here that Youtubers are so upset about potentially giving up some money to the copyright owners? "Advertising"? Last I bloody heard, companies organised their own advertising.

If you're defence for not wanting to essentially pay royalties is "But it's advertising" then you've basically outed yourself as a shill.

As a thought experiment: If I were to go on Deviantart and take a particularly striking image that was to my liking, set it as the backdrop to a Youtube video, then add twenty minutes of my own rambling, would I be allowed to get upset if the artist I took the picture from then pointed out I'd used the image without permission? Would I be allowed to throw a huff if they had the temerity to ask for a cut of the ad revenue as a royalty for using their image?

Spoiler

Because I remember Anita Sarkeesian not so long ago getting blasted by the gaming community for using an artist's picture without permission or payment in a Youtube video, and I would sure love to know what the difference is.

Pretty good summary of how I feel about this, the comparison to radio seems right. People point out that Youtube is about the personalities - which I totally agree with. But these personalities wouldn't become well known without the backdrop to their voice - the games (usually the things newcomers are originally searching for when they stumble upon these personalities).

I don't get the outrage. I DID understand the outrage for the copyright takedowns they were performing, when the Youtuber who put in work to commentate well and edit the video, made no money. Now Nintendo are going to make a percentage of the money...it just makes sense to me. Some people act like these games come out of nowhere into existence....teams put years of effort and creativity into them. And people think the producer of the game that made the content produced possible deserve nothing?

 

[KojiKnight]

Mario Kart 8 lets you upload a replay of the whole race, and indeed people who got the game early have been doing.

There are 2 kinds of replays, in-game and ones uploaded directly to youtube. You can NOT upload an entire race replay onto youtube straight from the Wii U. You are limited to 30 seconds or 60 seconds. Any full race replays on youtube were taken from a capture card.

 

[Some Nobody]

Ew. I'm just going to say that the only one who really benefits from this is Nintendo.

 

[RiggyRob]

There are 2 kinds of replays, in-game and ones uploaded directly to youtube. You can NOT upload an entire race replay onto youtube straight from the Wii U. You are limited to 30 seconds or 60 seconds. Any full race replays on youtube were taken from a capture card.

So does Mario Kart TV not let you upload a full race to YouTube, or is Mario Kart TV simply not up yet?

I might be misunderstanding it but I thought you could upload full races to YouTube via Mario Kart TV.

 

[KojiKnight]

So does Mario Kart TV not let you upload a full race to YouTube, or is Mario Kart TV simply not up yet?

I might be misunderstanding it but I thought you could upload full races to YouTube via Mario Kart TV.

Mario Kart TV allows you to have 3 types of video. 30 second, and 60 second highlight reels and full race.

Of those 3 options, 30 and 60 seconds are the only ones you can upload directly to youtube.

 

[Raist]

Unless you're talking about some crazy new game that is nothing but procedurally generated content, that's not true. The majority of games are designed with every possible interaction in mind. They have to be, in order to be QA'd and to stop players from breaking the game, running into invisible walls or falling through the floor. Someone playing Smash or 3D World isn't generating never before seen content, they're playing with the game how the developers intended them to.

Stop wasting money buying consoles and games then. Just go and watch someone play somewhere, if it's the same.

Do you regularly try and monetize friends coming over your house? I don't think that's called friendship. There's another word for making money off companionship...

It's basic copyright protection. Heck, it's not even that. It's Nintendo asking for a royalty when one of their games gets monetized on Youtube.

See this is the problem. It's just Nintendo going all "waaah they make money, we deserve a share!". That's the only reason. Except that the reason these people make money is because they actually add content to the basis which is the game.

Again, how is this in any way different to when an artist calls out a Youtube personality for not following correct copyright procedure, and using their work without permission?

Again because it's really not the same use at all. And the "fair use" rule is real, not some kind of fantasy, even though I'm sure some try to fight it as much as they can.

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

Mario Kart 8 lets you upload a replay of the whole race, and indeed people who got the game early have been doing.

Alright then, 5mins 30secs clips that you can't really edit, or comment on, or anything. It's rather restricted/controlled.

Also, can you make money off of streaming from Xbox One or PS4? (Serious question, I don't know)

Not everyone, but there are definitely people making money from Twitch streaming via ads (they're called affiliates, too. Except that in this case Twitch has no conflict of interest with the source material).

#1: His example wasn't great, a better example is using licensed music in a movie. No one watches a movie for the licensed music alone (sans musicals maybe). They have to pay for the rights to the music, this is a similar suggestion.

#2: Riot (League of Legends) has a list of do and do nots for sharing footage of their games on youtube or they will pull them down. This isn't a console versus PC argument... This is a "different companies do things differently".

Well again, it's a matter of how much of the actual product enojyment you get, and how much this potentially reduces potential sales. It's really hard to tell with LPs etc, because it might just also drive people to buy the game. Unless it's shit, I guess.
As for LoL, I don't know what's involved. If it's a list of do's and don't, it sounds like some NDA-type stuff, not a strict ban unless you pay them. But I don't know the details.