I may just be a random poster on a message board, but I'm pretty sure I know more about the law than the legal teams of giant multinational corporations. I mean, have any of these amateurs even heard the term "fair use?"
Lol they're not right..it's fair use and stop being a corporate defender. You have zero to gain from that
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Good luck with defending corporate who doesn't give a shit about you. Just sad that you still have corporate defenders standing by to defend their company in the time.of need
Last edited by kumikochan,
Did you even read my post? Just because i'm saying they are in the right it doesn't make me a corporate defender. I don't defend them however i can see how they have a right to defend their own product which they do. Not everyone who can see how they can be right is instantly a corporate defender, good god. Tone down your hatred and your BS for once, no wonder people say the scene is fucking toxic. Oh also, fair use only goes so far and it wont protect you in case the product/tutorial you are showing in your video is against the law. Just look at what happened to Voksi. He had TUTORIALS on how to circumvent Denuvo anti tamper in video format hosted online(Youtube i think) and he got busted for it
Last edited by Ashura66,
You're speaking about the technical specifics of a situation that can only be explained in much broader strokes. Nintendo wants TX dead due to the whole profiteering off of piracy thing but TX is Chinese, so Nintendo has to do everything in it's power to influence non-Chinese companies, like Google, to erase SX from existence. For reasons that don't need to be explained Google will bend over backwards to improve their relationship with Nintendo, so YouTube will obviously delete whatever Nintendo wants without question. Both companies are serving their stockholders so whether they're wrong or right is irrelevant, and YouTube is protected by their EULA so there's no question of legality (fair use
). TBH I'm surprised YT videos acknowledging SX weren't targeted sooner.
Again like I said before, youtube enforces copyright claims even when they aren't legally valid, specifically for large companies. Doesn't mean the video actually breaks copyright. They just like to appease large companies at the expense of first amendment rights and fair use law.You're speaking about the technical specifics of a situation that can only be explained in much broader strokes. Nintendo wants TX dead due to the whole profiteering off of piracy thing but TX is Chinese, so Nintendo has to do everything in it's power to influence non-Chinese companies, like Google, to erase SX from existence. For reasons that don't need to be explained Google will bend over backwards to improve their relationship with Nintendo, so YouTube will obviously delete whatever Nintendo wants without question. Both companies are serving their stockholders so whether they're wrong or right is irrelevant, and YouTube is protected by their EULA so there's no question of legality (fair use
They have a legal right to take action against the actual company or people pirating. They don't, however, have legal right to remove videos simply talking about it. And that is them going beyond the legal line. But youtube will always appease to large companies and enforce invalid copyright claims.
Yup pretty much
I haven't read the YouTube EULA, but I imagine it goes something like "I agree to let Google eat my 1st Ammendment rights and shit out my access to fair use". Still better than agreeing to be sewn into a HumancentiPad.
I just find it funny people are getting their panties in a twist over this, especially since the only intelligent people who give a crap about SX are TX employees.
Last edited by SaffronXL,
I don't think the OP ever explained how SX OS was presented in context of the video, if there were any download or affiliate links in the description, if the video's content could be potentially interpreted as enabling circumventation of copyright protection, etc. Any of these factors, or others, could have prompted this action.
Note that I am not saying that OP was promoting piracy in their video (I've never seen it) but Nintendo's opinion is what matters here, not ours.
Remember this particular line from the DMCA:
Note that I am not saying that OP was promoting piracy in their video (I've never seen it) but Nintendo's opinion is what matters here, not ours.
Remember this particular line from the DMCA:
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2015
- Messages
- 743
- Trophies
- 0
- Location
- Canada; Ontario
- Website
- steamcommunity.com
- XP
- 2,967
- Country
To be fair, Nintendo are known to have YouTube videos taken down simply for users using the Nintendo name, discussing Nintendo etc. There's a whitelist & a blacklist. This is nothing new
Well it used to be you had to "find out" how to hack your system, now theres so many youtube videos, I wouldnt be suprised if kids just randomly find out about it.
Showing gameplay shouldn't warrant a strike b/c theres no real evidence of the game being pirated unless your showing the audience installation of a nsp file. The real problem lies within promoting the sxos with purchasable links
or Rom hosting sites to pirate [This is how Nintendo gains leads on shutting them down]. Then again most main titles like BOTW/Mario gameplays will be a 3rd party copyright claim under Nintendo anyway another reason why Nintendo Tubers are streaming on Twitch. Streaming Mario games on Youtube is a strike now
or Rom hosting sites to pirate [This is how Nintendo gains leads on shutting them down]. Then again most main titles like BOTW/Mario gameplays will be a 3rd party copyright claim under Nintendo anyway another reason why Nintendo Tubers are streaming on Twitch. Streaming Mario games on Youtube is a strike now
Last edited by MasterJ360,
, Reason: Can't spell
It wouldn't matter if someone actually took Nintendo and YouTube to court over the takedown for financial losses. It's been well established for years that consumer rights are Constitutionally protected, and copyright law isn't a caveat. Thats why Geohot didn't pay Sony a dime, Jailbreaking was ruled legal and added to the list of exemptions by the US Library of Congress, and you can find Modshops online that sell RGH Xbox 360's, HBC Wii's, and Rebug PS3's in the States. Nintendo could be asking for a catastrophic legal loss in this sort of action. Then again, the console hacking community is pretty obscure and I kinda doubt anyone is established enough and has the means and sway to challenge them on this matter.
Opening the door to piracy isn't illegal, but the piracy itself is. That's why tinfoil and FBI still exist on github.
Anything's possible, but that seems incredibly unlikely. Noone with means cares whether SX OS videos are allowed on YouTube or not. I personally believe gameplay videos should fall under the terms of fair use, but we know that ship's already sailed.
I doubt it as well. Remember how much it took for the #wtfu movement to change YouTube's copyright strike policy? And if I'm not mistaken, it was only in the US. Plus you had TX specifically promoting SX on the basis of piracy so there's that ... lol.
Eh gameplay usually isn't really fair use. It's kinda gray area, but in most cases you aren't adding enough original content to have it fall within fair use. Depending on how it's done it may or may not be considered transitive work (using the original but changing it enough from the original to it that it adds something new). Simply talking over gameplay likely isn't enough unless you are nonprofit educational.
It will also likely fail in the "nature of the copyrighted work" because you are using a large portion of, if not the entirety of, the game which drastically lowers its chances of being considered fair use, especially for commercial use (if you monetize your videos)
People who throw around the term fair use should probably research it a bit
Fascinating.
I notice by your flag, you're from Portugal?
In America, we have something called the first amendment. It protects freedom of speech. You can have bomb-making guides and other "extreme" content (all a matter of opinion).
Freedom of speech doesn't protect content you agree with. It was specifically designed to protect speech you DON'T agree with. Including things that may be deemed potentially damaging to a company's profits like showing how to commit piracy on a platform. And I say "potentially" because it has never been proven that piracy leads to lower sales. In fact, many studies have shown that piracy actually increases sales.
If you notice, companies' legal teams have to deploy all their resources to squashing people, but if it ever goes to trial, they completely lose under first amendment claims. They always go for summary judgement to see if they can get injunctions and things like that and most people end up settling (like that PS3 hacker who agreed to not hack Sony products for life and all those other weird restrictions).
How is revealing information freely about how to hack a Nintendo system any different that Zero Day exploits of how to hack a browser and gain control of a PC (which Google reveals publicly)? It's not. Corporate interests do not trump the individual rights of people. Maybe in socialist countries they do, but not in freedom-loving countries like America - we actually respect liberty.
