Nintendo claiming ownership on Youtube videos featuring their product

[FAST6191]

So basically Youtube reserves the right to fuck all LPers in the ass. That's good to know.

Do they or were all Let's Play makers enjoying a free ride that is gradually coming to an end?

 

[the_randomizer]

... This is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that an LPer who's living off of the money he makes on his ads needs more revenue than an international company that made two of the best-selling video game devices of all time. The concept that you need to make sure that a global company makes pennies off of a Youtube ad is ridiculous considering they make billions.

Allow me to go into my semi-anarchist mode. "It's a corporation maaaaaan! Corporations just want to fucking run your pockets dryyyyyyyyyyyy."

To quote Homer Simpson when he steals cable, "Cable companies are big faceless corporations, which makes it okay!" My videos have never made money as I never get the views to even be considered for being monetized. So if it didn't affect me then, it probably won't affect me now. Of, just make videos that show Sega or Sony gameplay instead.

 

[TripleSMoon]

Let me get this straight... I pay for the game and give them free advertising with the let's play... And Nintendo gets to keep what little ad revenue I would get?

Seems legit.

 

[KingdomBlade]

Do they or were all Let's Play makers enjoying a free ride that is gradually coming to an end?

I disagree. While this shit will fade away in the future when Youtube dies, LP's are growing further in popularity. Look at Tobuscus or PewDiePie or Yogscast's rapidly growing subscriber and view numbers. I doubt that Youtube will want to deny themselves that kind of traffic by declining them from monetizing their videos, and I doubt that developers or publishers will want to deny themselves of that kind of fan love or free advertising, unless you're Nintendo or Sega. Additionally, the rapidly growing number of indie titles that grow huge on Youtube show that it's a legitimate platform for fans to promote games. If anything, the backlash towards this shows how important this community is to gaming in general.

And it's not just Let's Plays that grow huge on Youtube. A large majority of game reviews with footage shown and maybe even fan tributes could be affected in this kind of issue as well, and that means that we lose intriguing critique and solid entertainment. I doubt that that'll happen.

To quote Homer Simpson when he steals cable, "Cable companies are big faceless corporations, which makes it okay!" My videos have never made money as I never get the views to even be considered for being monetized. So if it didn't affect me then, it probably won't affect me now. Of, just make videos that show Sega or Sony gameplay instead.

Funny you should say that when Sega went totally ballistic in cock blocking Shining Force videos a few months ago. Anyways, the majority of the current Let's Players have grown to have a certain fondness for Indie gaming, such as the games found of Steam Greenlight or Humble Bundles. I actually credit them, in part, for the sudden surge of indie games. That can only be a good thing.

 

[Fishaman P]

People whining that Ninty is taking away moniez from videos that aren't supposed to be eligible? Gooby plz.
What sucks is that they're sending DMCA takedown notices to speedrunners, myself included.
I don't even have monetization enabled.

 

[RodrigoDavy]

It's people's fault for relying on copyrighted content. About almost every video game themed video I've watched has at least one image or music from Nintendo, even when it's not pertinent to the subject of the video. Also, no one ever said that youtube was a safe way to make money in the long term.

 

[gamefan5]

Hmm...

 

[FAST6191]

I disagree. While this shit will fade away in the future when Youtube dies, LP's are growing further in popularity. Look at Tobuscus or PewDiePie or Yogscast's rapidly growing subscriber and view numbers. I doubt that Youtube will want to deny themselves that kind of traffic by declining them from monetizing their videos, and I doubt that developers or publishers will want to deny themselves of that kind of fan love or free advertising, unless you're Nintendo or Sega. Additionally, the rapidly growing number of indie titles that grow huge on Youtube show that it's a legitimate platform for fans to promote games. If anything, the backlash towards this shows how important this community is to gaming in general.

A large majority of game reviews with footage shown and maybe even fan tributes could be affected in this kind of issue as well, and that means that we lose intriguing critique and solid entertainment. I doubt that that'll happen.

Most of that seems irrelevant in light of someone being able to say "but copyright law says otherwise". My favourite example/analogy at this point might be something like "I am gutted I can not start my asbestos installation business in 2013 where in 1980 it would have been booming".
I am sure Youtube would hate to deny themselves some of the pie but the law is a scary beast.
Likewise companies and youtube themselves do appreciate that a departure from ultra strict copyright enforcement is a good thing (they have some great ted videos that touch upon it, this one probably being one of the more relevant ones) so I am not sure doom and gloom is the likely future. Indeed Nintendo not going full "lock it down and wipe it all out" says as much.

Reviews.... I do not know if you mean that the automated tech that does it could trouble things or that in general it will. The former could pose a problem but the latter is a fairly clear cut exemption to copyright (the criticism or review part), now there have already been issues with this (a few people doing film reviews most notably) and their policies on the matter have come under fire (if you appeal and it fails it is quite bad and not just "heh it failed"). Tributes are an odd one, we possibly then touch upon fan fiction for something about as close as I can think of for a comparable issue and that is a long considered and interesting area ( http://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html being a pretty good link at this point).

 

[KingdomBlade]

Most of that seems irrelevant in light of someone being able to say "but copyright law says otherwise". My favourite example/analogy at this point might be something like "I am gutted I can not start my asbestos installation business in 2013 where in 1980 it would have been booming".
I am sure Youtube would hate to deny themselves some of the pie but the law is a scary beast.
Likewise companies and youtube themselves do appreciate that a departure from ultra strict copyright enforcement is a good thing (they have some great ted videos that touch upon it, this one probably being one of the more relevant ones) so I am not sure doom and gloom is the likely future. Indeed Nintendo not going full "lock it down and wipe it all out" says as much.

Reviews.... I do not know if you mean that the automated tech that does it could trouble things or that in general it will. The former could pose a problem but the latter is a fairly clear cut exemption to copyright (the criticism or review part), now there have already been issues with this (a few people doing film reviews most notably) and their policies on the matter have come under fire (if you appeal and it fails it is quite bad and not just "heh it failed"). Tributes are an odd one, we possibly then touch upon fan fiction for something about as close as I can think of for a comparable issue and that is a long considered and interesting area ( http://grrm.livejournal.com/151914.html being a pretty good link at this point).

Exactly. I doubt that any company would themselves deny trying to create an active online fanbase that shares content, information, and feedback with one another. Than can only help your game's reputation and status grow. Very few major game companies have actually done the whole "we will destroy your copyright stuff on youtube;" the latest I can think of is SEGA but as that was with only one game and it was less due to copyright claim and more because SEGA was extremely butthurt. They can't deny gamers the right to post on Youtube as the medium is significantly more reliant on an online community that it partially thrives upon. To say it simply, they're more "connected," especially the indie gaming scene AND the competitive gaming scene that the Youtube community glorifies quite heavily. Take for example, the success of Slender. Why was it such a hit? It was a hit due to the fact that, other than it being scary, it developed a large following on Youtube and the rest of the internet. Face-cam playthroughs spread like wildfire. Obviously, the dev allowed it just fine, which made the sequel largely a success.

Obviously, criticism is important. That's why it's important to encourage gamers to review, criticize, or give their impressions of a game in a more visual medium. If it gets too out of hand, they could claim that unauthorized footage being used in the video is subject to copyright, which it isn't, since it aids in the critique and that is it's primary purpose. Tributes are probably important too, since they normally serve to both entertain and to glorify the game or series in question, but it might also be subject to copyright, moreso than reviews. However, both are essentially pillars of the scene and I doubt that any gaming company would want to force remove either.

 

[FAST6191]

Exactly. I doubt that any company would themselves deny trying to create an active online fanbase that shares content, information, and feedback with one another. That can only help your game's reputation and status grow. Very few major game companies have actually done the whole "we will destroy your copyright stuff on youtube;" the latest I can think of is SEGA but as that was with only one game and it was less due to copyright claim and more because SEGA was extremely butthurt. They can't deny gamers the right to post on Youtube as the medium is significantly more reliant on an online community that it partially thrives upon. To say it simply, they're more "connected," especially the indie gaming scene AND the competitive gaming scene that the Youtube community glorifies quite heavily. Take for example, the success of Slender. Why was it such a hit? It was a hit due to the fact that, other than it being scary, it developed a large following on Youtube and the rest of the internet. Face-cam playthroughs spread like wildfire. Obviously, the dev allowed it just fine, which made the sequel largely a success.

Obviously, criticism is important. That's why it's important to encourage gamers to review, criticize, or give their impressions of a game in a more visual medium. If it gets too out of hand, they could claim that unauthorized footage being used in the video is subject to copyright, which it isn't, since it aids in the critique and that is it's primary purpose. Tributes are probably important too, since they normally serve to both entertain and to glorify the game or series in question, but it might also be subject to copyright, moreso than reviews. However, both are essentially pillars of the scene and I doubt that any gaming company would want to force remove either.

Certainly it is a foolish company that, in the present day and age, does not attempt to cultivate a fanbase and community around a franchise or some grouping that includes the game (thinking dev/pub specific forums rather than something new per game).

"They can't deny gamers the right to post on Youtube"
The phrasing seems a bit off there if you want to read it that way; they can deny people the right to post footage (save for the traditional satire, education, criticism/review exemptions and whatever other aspects of fair use extend to these days), it would just be remarkably unwise to do it in a blanket manner.

That said on tributes and playthroughs. That is a potentially interesting again for you may actually wish to prune some of that if the players are incompetent (whether in general or as an act -- I am sure we have seen those Let's play videos) -- perception is reality, nobody moves beyond the first page of a search, nobody watches more than the first 5 minutes and other such phrases. I suppose the classic one might be Sega's Blast processing nonsense



Many here might recognise mode 7 in the mario kart game used as a point of comparison which was a pretty big deal in 2d (3d?) animation history and as a technologist if there was ever going to be a game I would not compare to in this regard it would be that (or maybe Fzero). The advert worked though and thus we have the issue that you might not want the most popular video being some bellend that did not read the manuals, do the tutorial or put the effort in and attempted a playthrough.
More generally reviewers/press are kept under NDA for a lot of news, game reviews and even basic stats and film criticism has the whole "if the film does not screen ahead of time for press then" thing. Hell we have even seen trailers that leaked ahead of time pulled so the "maximum impact" might be felt.
Could this not then be an extension of that? Especially if monetisation is involved as it then makes you a professional of a sort.

 

[KingdomBlade]

Certainly it is a foolish company that, in the present day and age, does not attempt to cultivate a fanbase and community around a franchise or some grouping that includes the game (thinking dev/pub specific forums rather than something new per game).

"They can't deny gamers the right to post on Youtube"
The phrasing seems a bit off there if you want to read it that way; they can deny people the right to post footage (save for the traditional satire, education, criticism/review exemptions and whatever other aspects of fair use extend to these days), it would just be remarkably unwise to do it in a blanket manner.

That said on tributes and playthroughs. That is a potentially interesting again for you may actually wish to prune some of that if the players are incompetent (whether in general or as an act -- I am sure we have seen those Let's play videos) -- perception is reality, nobody moves beyond the first page of a search, nobody watches more than the first 5 minutes and other such phrases. I suppose the classic one might be Sega's Blast processing nonsense



Many here might recognise mode 7 in the mario kart game used as a point of comparison which was a pretty big deal in 2d (3d?) animation history and as a technologist if there was ever going to be a game I would not compare to in this regard it would be that (or maybe Fzero). The advert worked though and thus we have the issue that you might not want the most popular video being some bellend that did not read the manuals, do the tutorial or put the effort in and attempted a playthrough.
More generally reviewers/press are kept under NDA for a lot of news, game reviews and even basic stats and film criticism has the whole "if the film does not screen ahead of time for press then" thing. Hell we have even seen trailers that leaked ahead of time pulled so the "maximum impact" might be felt.
Could this not then be an extension of that? Especially if monetisation is involved as it then makes you a professional of a sort.

Yeah, the phrasing of that was off, sorry. I mean, they can't deny gamers the right to post on youtube if they don't want them to just totally fucking revolt. By they "can't" I actually mean "they shouldn't or this will be very bad for them."

Not necessarily, I think. Surely, serious playthroughs or depictions of a game are always present for every serious game. However, for example, I doubt that I'd ever want a serious playthrough of Slender as the very first one. =I think that the majority of playthroughs have some effort of skill placed into them, unless your videos rely on laughs or entertainment, such as Tobuscus. I mean, I've watched numerous playthroughs of various games, and the majority play the game well and seriously, and are at least fairly familiar with the gameplay mechanics. Few people actually want to see bad gamers, unless they're being bad for the laughs, in which case the game is probably either scary or laughable.

Most youtubers that are directly associated as part of the press are also under regulation such as embargo. The companies treat footage seriously, in the sense that youtubers associated as the press are unable to post gameplay footage on their channel until they allow it. However, the youtubers assume that if a company does not enforce an embargo, they are under free reign to post footage as soon as they can make it, thus promoting the game earlier than most people. I mean, most developers are keen on releasing demos to people who show footage and allowing people access to gameplay footage, which obviously signals that developers have an important association with the community of gamers. Not everyone can go to E3 or events and such, or not everyone is willing to play demos that are released by devs, so the ability to show footage through these youtube gamers is a great alternative.

 

[tronic307]

Assuming they are not pulling trademark law (and this appears to be copyright they are using) then legally they do get choose to remove it or not or something in between (only allowing noncommercial use being one of those somethings), they could even vary completely arbitrarily between different people if they wanted to.

Yeah? Well, so they can, but should they? I can't see their angle, I mean; do they really need the income? Seems more like Nintendo wants to maintain an iron grip on the way their games are perceived than anything else.

 

[RedCoreZero]

A large majority of people still don't use AdBlock and honestly if you care for a business that runs on ads you'll be considerate enough to whitelist them.

There's other ways of "punishing" AdBlock users too. Recently blip.tv (they run a lot of webshows like RedLetterMedia, where I get this example from, and I think That Guy With the Glasses) basically put a 90 second wait on AdBlock users but if you don't use AdBlock it's just a 30 second ad. So I eventually whitelisted the RedLetterMedia page so I just sit through the ad. Plus they're a great business and they deserve the ad revenue.

But I digress. Regarding the "well microsoft did it", just because someone else did it doesn't mean this is any less bad. Plus that's from a year ago and I never recalled it being a thing.

I knew the Guy With the Glasses was a god. I never click ads, as they lead into bullshit. Yes, they do well deserve the money. And, if I really liked them, I would click those ads for no apparent reason and close the tab. Still curious to watch as companies burn and die.

 

[Lestworth]

I've had the guilty pleasure of watching some viewpoints from peoples videos on youtube about this subject, and it has enlightened a point I did not see before.

As we all know Nintendo has been behind the ball with technology for quite some time. So we can all assume that Youtube is something new to the company in attempting to exploit it, without actually knowing what in the hell they are doing. This is actually an incredibly reasonable idea, though it also feels like something a Nintendo fanboy would say to protect the company. Nintendo's past with things such as this have been less then credible as it is anyways.

The mentality of "well why should I care, I still view it, screw the Lp'ers anyways! " is just pure jealously over someone who actually enjoys their JOB. It is, its nothing short of someone reading this, and laughing " ha ha ha ha, you deserve it! " Its a disgusting habit that has only grown in America because the job market for the majority of the country absolutely blows, forcing people who graduated college to take jobs of high school diploma requirements. Think of this logically, would you want these people to be in YOUR market as you search for a job? NO, it would only crowd that market even more!

The horrible thing about all this is that even if these said Lp'ers attempt to take this to court as a group lawsuit on the company, the resulting decision could be a negative or positive outcome according the judges view on this subject. It is obvious, even on these forums, that people have a VERY NEGATIVE, and VERY POSITIVE views on this subject as it is, it would be impossible to gain an absolute choice that both parties would agree to. This would mean that even after the judge gives his/her verdict, they will appeal it and demand another verdict. This would be tied up in the court system for an incredibly long time.

I think Nintendo jumped the gun with zero research, and they are getting the appropriate backlash from the community. Nintendo has been notorious for being bullheaded so this will be around for sometime, and that's a shame, as the quality of videos will diminish.

 

[TripleSMoon]

I've had the guilty pleasure of watching some viewpoints from peoples videos on youtube about this subject, and it has enlightened a point I did not see before.

As we all know Nintendo has been behind the ball with technology for quite some time. So we can all assume that Youtube is something new to the company in attempting to exploit it, without actually knowing what in the hell they are doing. This is actually an incredibly reasonable idea, though it also feels like something a Nintendo fanboy would say to protect the company. Nintendo's past with things such as this have been less then credible as it is anyways.

The mentality of "well why should I care, I still view it, screw the Lp'ers anyways! " is just pure jealously over someone who actually enjoys their JOB. It is, its nothing short of someone reading this, and laughing " ha ha ha ha, you deserve it! " Its a disgusting habit that has only grown in America because the job market for the majority of the country absolutely blows, forcing people who graduated college to take jobs of high school diploma requirements. Think of this logically, would you want these people to be in YOUR market as you search for a job? NO, it would only crowd that market even more!

The horrible thing about all this is that even if these said Lp'ers attempt to take this to court as a group lawsuit on the company, the resulting decision could be a negative or positive outcome according the judges view on this subject. It is obvious, even on these forums, that people have a VERY NEGATIVE, and VERY POSITIVE views on this subject as it is, it would be impossible to gain an absolute choice that both parties would agree to. This would mean that even after the judge gives his/her verdict, they will appeal it and demand another verdict. This would be tied up in the court system for an incredibly long time.

I think Nintendo jumped the gun with zero research, and they are getting the appropriate backlash from the community. Nintendo has been notorious for being bullheaded so this will be around for sometime, and that's a shame, as the quality of videos will diminish.

I was thinking the exact same thing about the LPers enjoying their jobs, but didn't feel like bothering with a post. Who is anyone to tell them to "get a real job"? What defines a " real job"? Last I checked, if it involves work on your part and getting paid, it's a job. LPers generally put a lot of money and effort into getting the capture software and/or hardware, the right PC, consoles and games, and many hours into actually playing the games. Sure, I suppose you can argue " but if they're gamers, they'd be logging those play hours anyway." Maybe they would, but I doubt most of them would be doing it on a regular schedule, with often constant commentary and/or wit for the enjoyment of the viewer.

To make a long story short, a lot of money and time (which the person may have very little of) is invested in LPs. You could almost argue that's it's like being a contractor, with YouTube, viewers, and advertisers as your clients. To say that making gameplay videos on YouTube " isn't a real job" is just absurd.

 

[weavile001]

Hmm...

my eyes are like this:

 

[Guild McCommunist]

LPs are easy. Good LPs are really quite hard.

I mean anyone can sit down, play a video game, and record themselves doing it. But to make it interesting, to give it a cutting edge, that takes ingenuity. Unfortunately that also means we get PewDiePie from it.

Still to say LPs aren't a "real job" or, hell, any internet video in general (this policy could extend to reviews, speedruns, montages, etc) is really quite elitist and stupid to say. It's an exciting new frontier in jobs, and it'd suck if it got hampered by a really dumb enforcement of policy.

 

[PityOnU]

If any of you get a chance, listen to TotalBiscuit's take on this whole thing. It sums it up rather well, I believe.

Other people may be different, but I know that although I watch a lot of "Let's Play" content (~3-5 hours a day), I don't recall a point where I ever watched them for the actual game. I generally tune into "Let's Play" content because I enjoy the personality or the humor of the person or group that makes the video. The actual game running in the background serves as little more than a backdrop to any conversations/observations that occur outside of that. So really, when you think about it, I'm basically watching ~3-5 hours of advertising for a certain game each and every day while I'm listening to a podcast, so that's something to be considered.

I just hope this doesn't end up creating an environment similar to RiffTrax.

P.S. - As a side note, does anyone know why the average IQ of a YouTube commenter (at least based on post content) is like 45 below the population average? Those guys are animals.

 

[Jan1tor]

my eyes are like this:

Shouldn't the music be playing backwards in this video?

 

[KingdomBlade]

If any of you get a chance, listen to TotalBiscuit's take on this whole thing. It sums it up rather well, I believe.

Other people may be different, but I know that although I watch a lot of "Let's Play" content (~3-5 hours a day), I don't recall a point where I ever watched them for the actual game. I generally tune into "Let's Play" content because I enjoy the personality or the humor of the person or group that makes the video. The actual game running in the background serves as little more than a backdrop to any conversations/observations that occur outside of that. So really, when you think about it, I'm basically watching ~3-5 hours of advertising for a certain game each and every day while I'm listening to a podcast, so that's something to be considered.

I just hope this doesn't end up creating an environment similar to RiffTrax.

P.S. - As a side note, does anyone know why the average IQ of a YouTube commenter (at least based on post content) is like 45 below the population average? Those guys are animals.

I just watched TotalBiscuit's take, and it's absolutely spot on. Probably the best and most unbiased commentary I've seen on the issue so far.

From him, he acknowledges that this could be a severely bad thing for Nintendo also. The majority of high profile Let's Players that have built up a fanbase that relies on them partially for information and commentary on Nintendo games will be discouraged to further pursue making these videos because they won't be able to generate any revenue on it, and thus Nintendo will lose out on essential marketing. They are alienating a significant chunk of their audience by alienating gamers that passionately push your games and your brand image on Youtube. The majority of the people who are high profile on Youtube are monetized in the first place, and do this as their job, so this will hurt Nintendo as much as it will hurt the gamers and the fans, perhaps even more. They are essentially revoking the ability of the people that clearly love their company to give them what is already free promotion in exchange for the money they make through ad revenue.

tl;dr They are fucking biting some of their most passionate fans and advocates in the ass, and that's really dickish. Thus, this is bad for pretty much everyone. It is bad for them, bad for fans, bad for consumers, bad for Yotubers and etc. There is virtually nothing good about it, regardless of who owns the property or not.