Nintendo claiming ownership on Youtube videos featuring their product

[Rydian]

People here need to be more patient, we don't know yet how this Nintendo measure will actually affect youtube uploaders, yet people are already bashing against this attitude...
Things might only slightly change or not change at all.

The OP actually mentions somebody who already had monetization redirected on his videos before this thread was even made...

This is not a "Nintendo has taken this stance and might do this with this results", this is "suddenly Nintendo started doing this and it has already had these results".

Anyway, I consider to be stupid someone who thinks that they can rely exclusively on video uploading for a living. We don't even know if youtube will still be online 5 years from now. What do they expect? Job security?

I've sanded tables at an ice cream factory for two weeks (just until they were all refinished), washed dishes in the back of a restaurant for a few months on and off (I was on call as an extra), and did two semesters of paid work study at my college.

None of those were anything you'd call "job security", but that doesn't mean they weren't legal jobs* or that I didn't do any work or wouldn't want them to continue once they stopped.

* - Adsense is legal payment, I mentioned earlier they need to confirm your home address, tax information, etc.

 

[RodrigoDavy]

I've sanded tables at an ice cream factory for two weeks (just until they were all refinished), washed dishes in the back of a restaurant for a few months on and off (I was on call as an extra), and did two semesters of paid work study at my college.

None of those were anything you'd call "job security", but that doesn't mean they weren't legal jobs* or that I didn't do any work or wouldn't want them to continue once they stopped.

* - Adsense is legal payment, I mentioned earlier they need to confirm your home address, tax information, etc.

But you did know they were temporary jobs and have moved on, so I don't think you're stupid. I would think you're stupid if you wanted to live off washing dishes for your entire life

 

[Rydian]

If somebody finds a job they enjoy, don't let your jealousy spoil your morals.

 

[RodrigoDavy]

If somebody finds a job they enjoy, don't let your jealousy spoil your morals.

Not that I'm jealous, but don't tell me you didn't know that what happened wasn't previsible. I don't think LPers are lazy or anything, I just think they were aware of the risk and I sincerely don't think Nintendo did anything wrong. Doesn't mean I don't like what they do though, just that they didn't try to avoid it either

 

[Rydian]

Not that I'm jealous, but don't tell me you didn't know that what happened wasn't previsible. I don't think LPers are lazy or anything, I just think they were aware of the risk and I sincerely don't think Nintendo did anything wrong. Doesn't mean I don't like what they do though, just that they didn't try to avoid it either

Lots of them do (did before), and are (are doing after the news), by not playing Nintendo games.

 

[KingdomBlade]

People here need to be more patient, we don't know yet how this Nintendo measure will actually affect youtube uploaders, yet people are already bashing against this attitude...
Things might only slightly change or not change at all.

Anyway, I consider to be stupid someone who thinks that they can rely exclusively on video uploading for a living. We don't even know if youtube will still be online 5 years from now. What do they expect? Job security? Shame on them for not worrying about what content they were using on their videos...

Not that I'm jealous, but don't tell me you didn't know that what happened wasn't previsible. I don't think LPers are lazy or anything, I just think they were aware of the risk and I sincerely don't think Nintendo did anything wrong. Doesn't mean I don't like what they do though, just that they didn't try to avoid it either

Yeah, no. There are people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars through this and expand this kind of work into professional voice acting, game promotion, etc. Do you seriously think that the economy anywhere is stable enough that you'd want these people who make a living out of this to quit and join the fucking job market? No. Just no. I can't stress this enough: what they do is way more than just uploading videos. They entertain. They work hard. They don't just fucking record using a phone. They actually do something that makes people want to watch them. I don't think anyone who cani see this would call anyone as famous as PewDiePie or as knowledgeable as TotalBiscuit stupid for making a living out of doing this. I actually find TotalBiscuit and several other YT gamers more respectable than the gaming publications the majority of the time. The people who are successful through this have, the majority of the time, become immersed enough in the gaming industry to branch out in other parts of it.

We already know pretty much how this will affect them. They will have less motivation to make Nintendo videos. This is pretty much a terribly obvious given. It's not a secret that this will almost definitely be a bad thing. Even people who think that what Nintendo is doing is fair acknowledge that there will be considerable repercussions to just about every party involved. They're using automatic detection, so it's not like Nintendo's hand picking this shit out. The automated system's going to pick out whatever shit they see.

If you don't think Nintendo's doing anything wrong, then look at the backlash. Think this through for a second. Even if you don't think the backlash was fair, if they didn't do this, they wouldn't have gotten the backlash. They're fucking biting their own asses here. If their PR team was reasonable, they would've known that the gaming community wouldn't react well. So why even do it? They clearly did something wrong, since they're getting hurt too.

 

[FAST6191]

If you don't think Nintendo's doing anything wrong, then look at the backlash. Think this through for a second. Even if you don't think the backlash was fair, if they didn't do this, they wouldn't have gotten the backlash. They're fucking biting their own asses here. If their PR team was reasonable, they would've known that the gaming community wouldn't react well. So why even do it? They clearly did something wrong, since they're getting hurt too.

I can certainly entertain the thought that it might have been a net positive for Nintendo to do nothing or be less restrictive, however this is the internet and worse it is youtube so backlashes about almost anything can be expected (left 4 dead 2 being too soon probably being my favourite). However your argument risks becoming circular logic and that is seldom that useful a position to argue from.
As for why
IP rights allow them to and everybody loves a bit of money for "nothing" or to spin it another way losing money you are legally entitled to is not something many turn up.
They might have wanted to control the perception of their IP (already happens an awful lot by various other forms).
They might have wanted to force people to deal with them in a more direct manner.

 

[TripleSMoon]

I am saying it is OK or at least solid under the law for rights holders to an IP to profit off that IP and control its use as far as the law allows. In this case if it means that large corporations create some IP and want to control its use as far as legal protections allow then they are quite free to do so.

Well of course it's legal (as I said before). But "legal/lawful" doesn't always equal "right/ok" unfortunately.

Gamegrumps you say? Looks like I have got something to watch. XD

I strongly recommend their playthroughs of Goof Troop, Kirby Superstar, and Sonic 06.

 

[FAST6191]

Well of course it's legal (as I said before). But "legal/lawful" doesn't always equal "right/ok" unfortunately.

There seems to be a weird parallelism going on in this discussion between legal and all sorts of ethical positions.

That said fair enough, what then makes it OK for the let's play types to take the work of the IP holders and use it without license to do so?

 

[KingdomBlade]

There seems to be a weird parallelism going on in this discussion between legal and all sorts of ethical positions.

That said fair enough, what then makes it OK for the let's play types to take the work of the IP holders and use it without license to do so?

Found out something a bit interesting.

When an LPer or anyone who makes gaming videos on Youtube would like to monetize his/her videos, under traditional rules, they wouldn't be allowed to do so. Youtube would eventually stop your account from monetizing the videos and begin deleting videos. HOWEVER, the majority of LPers and Youtube gamers who monetize gaming videos of games that are distributed by large companies (EA, Microsoft, Activision) are signed to networks and partnerships that are associated with the publishers which give them the permission to monetize their content as part of a sort of co-promotional concept. This means that these companies willfully allow gamers to publish their content without restriction (other than embargo) and make money off of it, so no, the people that are major LPers on Youtube aren't hobos that mooch off people's games. The companies allow their content to be shared, so this basically kills the argument that they're insensitive copyright thieves.

I can only presume that Nintendo is one of these companies that gamers are partnered with (considering their past relationship with a few LPers) or Youtube would've removed the videos a long time ago. However, their new copyright claim includes all videos, which makes it even much more of a sting to those that make money creating videos for them, basically.

 

[Rydian]

So it's just confirmation that Nintendo did a 180 the moment they heard money was involved?

 

[KingdomBlade]

So it's just confirmation that Nintendo did a 180 the moment they heard money was involved?

I still think (and hope) they had a different reason, like content control or planning to release their own video network or something. It'd be really depressing if they went through all this trouble for what is essentially pocket change under a bus seat to them.

 

[FAST6191]

There seems to be a weird parallelism going on in this discussion between legal and all sorts of ethical positions.

That said fair enough, what then makes it OK for the let's play types to take the work of the IP holders and use it without license to do so?

Found out something a bit interesting.

When an LPer or anyone who makes gaming videos on Youtube would like to monetize his/her videos, under traditional rules, they wouldn't be allowed to do so. Youtube would eventually stop your account from monetizing the videos and begin deleting videos. HOWEVER, the majority of LPers and Youtube gamers who monetize gaming videos of games that are distributed by large companies (EA, Microsoft, Activision) are signed to networks and partnerships that are associated with the publishers which give them the permission to monetize their content as part of a sort of co-promotional concept. This means that these companies willfully allow gamers to publish their content without restriction (other than embargo) and make money off of it, so no, the people that are major LPers on Youtube aren't hobos that mooch off people's games. The companies allow their content to be shared, so this basically kills the argument that they're insensitive copyright thieves.

I can only presume that Nintendo is one of these companies that gamers are partnered with (considering their past relationship with a few LPers) or Youtube would've removed the videos a long time ago. However, their new copyright claim includes all videos, which makes it even much more of a sting to those that make money creating videos for them, basically.

Bolded parts would seem to negate your assessment/contention.

"these companies willfully allow gamers to publish their content without restriction (other than embargo)"
I have not read a contract between someone like machinima and one of the IP holders they deal with and doubt I will be able to find one (such things are often quite sensitive documents) but I would be stunned if time locked information sensitivity for given instances was the sole restriction upon the use of the content. Even if it is something like "and otherwise conforms to youtube standards" (which owing to their rather harsh stance on a lot of things is not inconsiderable) it counts, that said they would probably fire a lawyer that wrote a document like that rather than spelling it out.

 

[KingdomBlade]

Bolded parts would seem to negate your assessment/contention.

"these companies willfully allow gamers to publish their content without restriction (other than embargo)"
I have not read a contract between someone like machinima and one of the IP holders they deal with and doubt I will be able to find one (such things are often quite sensitive documents) but I would be stunned if time locked information sensitivity for given instances was the sole restriction upon the use of the content. Even if it is something like "and otherwise conforms to youtube standards" (which owing to their rather harsh stance on a lot of things is not inconsiderable) it counts, that said they would probably fire a lawyer that wrote a document like that rather than spelling it out.

Well, to be totally honest, what I wrote was sort of an exaggeration. I don't exactly write like some sort of word for word lawyer, since I'm 16 and I'm fairly unfamiliar with what you'd call "lawyer talk" and I write in a fairly loose manner and without thinking that much through.

There are probably more restrictions to be found. However, I'm fairly positive that this does ensure that they DO have permission to publish content with video game footage in it, and are allowed some form of liberty with regard to which way they present and release it, which is basically my bottom line, and they do not just publish content without any permission.

 

[FAST6191]

they do not just publish content without any permission.

They is not everybody though and that would seem to be the issue at hand.

 

[KingdomBlade]

They is not everybody though and that would seem to be the issue at hand.

As I said, I'm talking strictly about those monetized on Youtube. Those monetized on Youtube are REQUIRED to have permission or they will immediately be revoked of their ability to do so. I'm familiar with a gamer who failed to join a network at the beginning of his Youtube career and tried to monetize his account, and he was banned from monetizing due to having video game footage of Dead Space, published by EA. He made a new account and joined a network before being monetized, and he was able to continue his LP's while being monetized.

So basically, everybody who monetizes videos of games that are published by large companies (this does not count games such as Minecraft, which the developers are fine about videos being made of it) is likely either partnered, or about to be banned from monetizing.

 

[jacksprat1990]

Gamegrumps you say? Looks like I have got something to watch. XD

If you like listening to annoying wankers, the GameGrumps will certainly fit that category.

 

[TripleSMoon]

That said fair enough, what then makes it OK for the let's play types to take the work of the IP holders and use it without license to do so?

It isn't. I never said it was. I'm just saying that it's just as unfair for Nintendo to take ALL their monetization as a result. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That would be like if a thief robbed you of $100, and in turn, you went a robbed him back of not only the $100 he stole from you, but all the money that actually belonged to him as well.

 

[FAST6191]

In that case KingdomBlade we might well be talking about different groups/subgroups of people.

It isn't. I never said it was. I'm just saying that it's just as unfair for Nintendo to take ALL their monetization as a result. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That would be like if a thief robbed you of $100, and in turn, you went a robbed him back of not only the $100 he stole from you, but all the money that actually belonged to him as well.

Traditionally if you infringe upon an IP somewhere you can expect to lose out in a fairly big way. Given most let's plays and such seem to be focused solely upon a single game or possibly a franchise the game (and so the IP in question) would represent a fundamental component of the resulting work (a let's play without game footage is quite far from a complete standalone work and such like) it would not be a new precedent for the entire profit for the venture to be forfeit.

Your analogy is not great either as the only recompense I can have is that which is granted by the courts or an agreement made to be or able to be enforced by one. On the other hand with Nintendo and Google largely acting as (though I am curious about google's terms of service when it comes to this -- I would not be surprised to see that by joining you waive certain rights to contend decisions like this, whether that then infringes upon more basic rights is a whole other hornets nest) judge, jury and executioner that analogy might be more apt than it appears at face value.

 

[KingdomBlade]

In that case KingdomBlade we might well be talking about different groups/subgroups of people.

Then which group were you referring to?