Nintendo Suddenly Claims Ownership Of Many YouTube Videos

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Ok now I'm really disappointed in you Nintendo. This is one hell of a dick move. Esp. since wouldn't LP's fall under the purview of fair use?

Wouldn't this have implications for reviewers? What's the difference between an LP and a review?

CriticalMiss:

Or maybe they are just being a bunch of twats and don't give a shit as long as they are making money? That's easier.

You ever think maybe some LPers are also twats for making money off games other people developers. Check out this guy. Here's what his youtube description has to say:

Subscribe to stay updated with the the latest game walkthroughs & Trailers !

Why HHGaming?

1-Best HD quality in YT

2-Professional gameplay

3-No annoying Commentary

4-Fastest uploads in YT

5-Short walkthroughs (no deaths/time wasted)

6-I never play on Easy mode

My walkthroughs are way shorter than other youtubers ( i never rush through games) many youtubers do die a lot or drag their walkthroughs so they can get more views, i will never do that, if you value your time you will love HHGaming :)

You know what the is? A goddamn business pitch. A business pitch where he isn't adding any commentary, any original content, anything that could be construed as his own work. All he's doing is playing games other people developed. And he wants to get subsidised by you for it.

He's got 178,000 subscribers. Do you think all those subscribers go out and buy the games he plays after watching his videos? Or do they just use his 'no commentary, no time-wasted, HD-quality, fastest uploaded in YT' videos as a free alternative to actually buying the games themselves?

Guys like this are the reason Nintendo needs to step in with licensing in the first place.

canadamus_prime:
Ok now I'm really disappointed in you Nintendo. This is one hell of a dick move. Esp. since wouldn't LP's fall under the purview of fair use?

Nope. Fair Use covers excerpts of material used for educational purposes. It doesn't cover the entire piece of media being uploaded to Youtube, as is the case with LPs.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

CriticalMiss:

Or maybe they are just being a bunch of twats and don't give a shit as long as they are making money? That's easier.

You ever think maybe some LPers are also twats for making money off games other people developers. Check out this guy. Here's what his youtube description has to say:

Subscribe to stay updated with the the latest game walkthroughs & Trailers !

Why HHGaming?

1-Best HD quality in YT

2-Professional gameplay

3-No annoying Commentary

4-Fastest uploads in YT

5-Short walkthroughs (no deaths/time wasted)

6-I never play on Easy mode

My walkthroughs are way shorter than other youtubers ( i never rush through games) many youtubers do die a lot or drag their walkthroughs so they can get more views, i will never do that, if you value your time you will love HHGaming :)

You know what the is? A goddamn business pitch. A business pitch where he isn't adding any commentary, any original content, anything that could be construed as his own work. All he's doing is playing games other people developed. And he wants to get subsidised by you for it.

He's got 178,000 subscribers. Do you think all those subscribers go out and buy the games he plays after watching his videos? Or do they just use his 'no commentary, no time-wasted, HD-quality, fastest uploaded in YT' videos as a free alternative to actually buying the games themselves?

Guys like this are the reason Nintendo needs to step in with licensing in the first place.

I agree and these laws exist to fight guys like this, but not all LP'rs are equal and they should not all be judged by their most ass-holey member.

Can't he do some kind of counter claim?
After all, his voice is his property.

Mr Binary:
The way this is really seeming to me is Nintendo is 'taking their ball and going home.' They're just leaving a picture of the ball for all the other kids to look at when they are playing with it all alone.

I would say more like: Nintendo lets people keep playing with the ball, but if they get money from playing well or in any way that drives people's attention to them, this money is now Nintendo's, because it's their ball. (It's not a perfect analogy, but it's the best I could come up with now)
Not gonna lie... I'm disappointed with Nintendo. I hoped they could be better than this.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

canadamus_prime:
Ok now I'm really disappointed in you Nintendo. This is one hell of a dick move. Esp. since wouldn't LP's fall under the purview of fair use?

Nope. Fair Use covers excerpts of material used for educational purposes. It doesn't cover the entire piece of media being uploaded to Youtube, as is the case with LPs.

But it's still being used for educational purposes though. I mean, fuck, while their at it why don't they go send C&D letters to those that publish walkthroughs on GameFAQs? __

BiH-Kira:
No one watches the LP's because of the commentary. They watch it because of the gameplay.

Wow, assuming a lot there, aren't you!?

I guess people watch Freeman's Mind solely for the gameplay, too.

Oh that's just wrong.

I was never a large nintendo fan before, now I'm bordering on disliking them. Let's players produce content that people watch and are pretty much giving nintendo FREE advertising.

Fucking pricks

canadamus_prime:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

canadamus_prime:
Ok now I'm really disappointed in you Nintendo. This is one hell of a dick move. Esp. since wouldn't LP's fall under the purview of fair use?

Nope. Fair Use covers excerpts of material used for educational purposes. It doesn't cover the entire piece of media being uploaded to Youtube, as is the case with LPs.

But it's still being used for educational purposes though. I mean, fuck, while their at it why don't they go send C&D letters to those that publish walkthroughs on GameFAQs? __

Because they are not broadcasting the game.

On the one hand, as a beginning LP'er myself (just for fun, not for profit, mind you) it does seem pretty ugly for a large company to be picking on a small, independent video uploader just to get what small amount of money there is to be gleaned from ads on a single youtube channel. On the OTHER hand, in all fairness, there's no denying that streaming video or saving videos of play sessions does make use of copyright-held material that belongs to a company. So that begs the question if what's being done is a genuine violation of individual video makers' rights, or if this is a case of most people not caring about a company's rights if it's big enough, because they think once you make more than a certain amount of money you automatically forfeit your claim to your intellectual property.

A lot of this larger issue about the legality of internet videos seems to stem from two questions: 1) how should copyrights be interpreted and 2) is there a double standard going on with them? It's difficult to determine, sometimes, if when something is copyright protected if that simply means you can't make copies of something and claim it as your own or try to make money off of it...or if you can't make copies or publicly display something, period. I admit sometimes I'm a bit uneasy about streaming my game playing sessions because I'm not sure what the letter of the law on copyrights are on this particular point. I -know- I can't claim a copyright-protected work as my own, or sell bootleg reproductions of it for my own profit, but beyond that? To me, it seems to get hazy. The copyright laws state that public displays or performances of copyright-protected work isn't allowed, but is the internet considered "public"? Sure, anyone can access an internet broadcast if it's not password protected, but you'd have to actively go to the given person's stream page or youtube channel to find it; it's not like it's on a billboard or being shown on a big advertising screen in Time Square.

The other question really seems to appear whenever these rights are debated in how they apply to different entities. You ask what copyrights mean to a big company, few people are going to say you don't have the right to use their released materials in some kind of production of your own, even if you make sure to give them credit. But if some small, independent film or game maker's stuff or artist or writer's work was included in some way by another, or closely followed by someone else's work, then people would be seriously grilling them about just how much they "borrowed" from the other person. If the borrower were a large company, then folks wouldn't even be questioning them; they'd be calling them thieves right off the bat, no matter how many interviews there are where the company's designers gave the independent ones credit for "inspiring" them. People will reinterpret "inspire" to mean "did the work for us so we took it."

It's a tough debate, and one that I think could be really easily answered if the legal system would hold a press conference or issue a statement clarifying how copyrights relate to internet broadcast of another person or company's work.

UltraPic:

canadamus_prime:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Nope. Fair Use covers excerpts of material used for educational purposes. It doesn't cover the entire piece of media being uploaded to Youtube, as is the case with LPs.

But it's still being used for educational purposes though. I mean, fuck, while their at it why don't they go send C&D letters to those that publish walkthroughs on GameFAQs? __

Because they are not broadcasting the game.

I still see little difference. It's just text as opposed to video. Oh I know! They aren't making any money of of it. X

This is sound from a business perspective and I really don't see boycotts being so massive as to put House Mario in any serious trouble. That said, I will agree that from a marketing and visibility-enhancing point of view, this is extremely short-sighted.

No LPers being paid means no more Let's Plays. No more Let's Plays, no more free marketing. No more free marketing, less visibility. In short, it's another example of why copyright laws need to be reworked. There needs to be some sort of leeway for fan-based content.

This article is soo easy to write, i could have written it in 8th grade, 2 paragraphs, wrapped around in 50 ads of a php database.

So the WiiU isn't making them any money, since developers don't seem to give a damn about the system. Now they pull this stunt, which in all likelihood will have the LPers take down and stop doing Nintendo games. Awesome, even less exposure for Nintendo.

Looks like they are digging their own grave. GG Nintendo.

I've always found LPers just as much money grubbing as Nintendo is being right now. If they actually did LPing for the fun they wouldn't have ads on. LPers just want the cash for playing video games and I find THAT just as selfish as Nintendo demanding money for usage of their games.

With all of their failures recently Nintendo could use the extra money. Even though I find them uncreative and incompetent (in every sense of the words), I still don't want them to run out of business. A lot of people would lose their jobs and more competition for the other jobs, and it's just not right.

Mr Binary:

Karadalis:
Wait a sec... what about third party games?

For example... can nintendo make this claim when the lper is playing monster hunter on the wii u? I mean it is capcoms game not nintendos...

So would this claim only work for nintendo made titles like any mario, zelda, metroid etc. title?

Technically it is being playing on a Nintendo console, so yes. They actually called copy-right on a couple of my Monster Hunter Tri videos that were posted a few years back. I'm considering just not doing any of the GR quest recordings I had planned.

Hrm.. but still its not their game... all this is about game footage of their games and not the console as is.. since its not even seen in the videos.

Sounds to me like nintendo is simply strong arming..

Perhaps you should contact Capcom and ask if they allow you to make those letsplays? If they do i think nintendo has no legal claim.

Steve Waltz:
I've always found LPers just as much money grubbing as Nintendo is being right now. If they actually did LPing for the fun they wouldn't have ads on. LPers just want the cash for playing video games and I find THAT just as selfish as Nintendo demanding money for usage of their games.

With all of their failures recently Nintendo could use the extra money. Even though I find them uncreative and incompetent (in every sense of the words), I still don't want them to run out of business. A lot of people would lose their jobs and more competition for the other jobs, and it's just not right.

Most LP'rs don't make enough money to even closely pay for the time they spend making them. Also oh no, someone is actually managing to make money by doing something they like while spreading fun to everyone who wants to watch them.

While Nintendo isn't exactly going under, just because they have a million dollars of value less this year(not entirely sure about the numbers) compared to last year doesn't mean their exactly dying. Perhaps if they want more money, they should make games with the money they have and if people like them, they will give them the money to make more.

canadamus_prime:

UltraPic:

canadamus_prime:

But it's still being used for educational purposes though. I mean, fuck, while their at it why don't they go send C&D letters to those that publish walkthroughs on GameFAQs? __

Because they are not broadcasting the game.

I still see little difference. It's just text as opposed to video. Oh I know! They aren't making any money of of it. X

Well yeah, that is the issue. Why should LPers make money from games they had nothing to do with? Especially when commentary adds at most a negligible addition to the footage.

And most LPs aren't anywhere close to as educational as walkthroughs. Most I've seen are just random people fucking around while spouting random bollocks. Not exactly the same thing as a walkthrough written to be entirely focused on beating a game.

So, let me get this straight. Nintendo is having an issue getting the WiiU market penetration. They have basically till Nov to right the ship, before the new consoles come out and their system takes a distant third in the new-console race. And they've chosen to spend this time... making sure fewer high-profile LPers do their games and thus provide free advertising for the Nintendo brand. GG.

I get the logic on some level. They're hurting and they somehow think this'll help. It won't. They don't live in a bubble, and so long as there are other games to LP, the LPers who make a living off this will just go elsewhere. The ones who don't make a living off this will vary in mentality, but I don't see them being especially happy Nintendo just called 'dibs' on something they created, commented, edited, and uploaded primarily out of love of gaming.

Long story short, this was a dumb move and a dumb time to make the move. Sadly par for the course with Nintendo's recent actions.

If the pre-release hype had no effect and the pre-order incentive traps didn't work, it falls on the strength of the actual game itself to push sales. With that in mind, LPs have become the best advertising that companies like Nintendo have right now. Why they would do anything that gives players less incentive to make them is beyond me.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

canadamus_prime:

UltraPic:

Because they are not broadcasting the game.

I still see little difference. It's just text as opposed to video. Oh I know! They aren't making any money of of it. X

Well yeah, that is the issue. Why should LPers make money from games they had nothing to do with? Especially when commentary adds at most a negligible addition to the footage.

And most LPs aren't anywhere close to as educational as walkthroughs. Most I've seen are just random people fucking around while spouting random bollocks. Not exactly the same thing as a walkthrough written to be entirely focused on beating a game.

Well I don't know. I don't watch LP's nor do I know the exact ins and outs of copyright law or fair use, but nevertheless this still seems like one hell of a dick move to me.

James Joseph Emerald:
Wouldn't this have implications for reviewers? What's the difference between an LP and a review?

It can and it does, technically speaking having clips of a game in a review can and in many cases does violate copyright law. It's not just reviews, machinima for example falls into the same problem. Contrary to wanna-be keyboard lawyers, fair use does not cover it in many situations.

Most people have a skewed view of what fair use laws actually entail, and in the courts it's usually decided on a case by case basis, no real black and white guidelines. If you take a photo of a game case on your desk, that is fair use. But if you scan the game case and use the image directly it can be slapped with a copyright claim.

I've know people who have had youtube yank videos for copyright 3-4 YEARS after they was posted. This problem increases when you consider how often game rights can bounce from publisher to publisher. Something THQ didn't have a problem with Koch media may drop the hammer on.

A publisher could hit someone like Angry Joe with a copyright claim if they WANTED to. And that's the big thing here, most companies openly allow use of their products. Many even have terms of use in their TOS agreements that cover streaming content, like Valve. At the end of the day it's just typically better to let it go as it can generate bad press (ahem Nintendo) and most of the time it can actually be a positive for a game, ie free publicity and marketing.

At the end of the day copyright law in the US is a mess and needs a serious overhaul. Most of our laws have just not kept pace with the digital age. And when they do get updated corporate lobbying tends to give us archaic laws that give entirely to much power to the corporations.

Hell recently congress tossed a bill around that could of moved streaming copyrighted digital media from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Nihilm:

Steve Waltz:
I've always found LPers just as much money grubbing as Nintendo is being right now. If they actually did LPing for the fun they wouldn't have ads on. LPers just want the cash for playing video games and I find THAT just as selfish as Nintendo demanding money for usage of their games.

With all of their failures recently Nintendo could use the extra money. Even though I find them uncreative and incompetent (in every sense of the words), I still don't want them to run out of business. A lot of people would lose their jobs and more competition for the other jobs, and it's just not right.

Most LP'rs don't make enough money to even closely pay for the time they spend making them. Also oh no, someone is actually managing to make money by doing something they like while spreading fun to everyone who wants to watch them.

While Nintendo isn't exactly going under, just because they have a million dollars of value less this year(not entirely sure about the numbers) compared to last year doesn't mean their exactly dying. Perhaps if they want more money, they should make games with the money they have and if people like them, they will give them the money to make more.

That really doesn't change the fact that they're selfish. If they have adverts on that means they're just doing it for money which makes them just as selfish as Nintendo. Are you going to say that LPers' selfishness is justified because they're not big-time video game companies? Selfishness is selfishness; I feel LP videos shouldn't have any type of money involved and should just be about fun. But, this is the 21st century and everything revolves around money theses days, right?

canadamus_prime:

Well I don't know. I don't watch LP's nor do I know the exact ins and outs of copyright law or fair use, but nevertheless this still seems like one hell of a dick move to me.

But how can you be in a position to call it a dick move if you don't watch LPs or understand copyright law?

Every other major publisher and developer has already been doing this and harsher. Microsoft got LPs of Halo 4 taken down last year. Sega got LPs of Shining Force taken down. Not just the ad revenue, entire video channels got hit with copyright claims.

How is allowing LPs to stay on youtube on a non-profit scheme outside of licensing agreements more of a dick move in comparison?

I really think that the stupid part of this is Nintendo is trying to win-win off this situtation. They want the attention of being on Youtube from people, but they want all the money from them to. Instead of someone playing though Luigi's Mansion 2, getting a couple hundred people to buy it, and getting a little bit of ad revenue, Nintendo gets the sales and the ad revenue.

Kinda makes me like the Paranautical Activity guys -a lot- more. They actually fought long and hard to get well known Let's Players to play their game (which they provided free), and didnt care about the ad revenue... because they got PUBLICITY... FOR FREE.

So yeah, this is stupid.

Steve Waltz:

While Nintendo isn't exactly going under, just because they have a million dollars of value less this year(not entirely sure about the numbers) compared to last year doesn't mean their exactly dying. Perhaps if they want more money, they should make games with the money they have and if people like them, they will give them the money to make more.

That really doesn't change the fact that they're selfish. If they have adverts on that means they're just doing it for money which makes them just as selfish as Nintendo. Are you going to say that LPers' selfishness is justified because they're not big-time video game companies? Selfishness is selfishness; I feel LP videos shouldn't have any type of money involved and should just be about fun. But, this is the 21st century and everything revolves around money theses days, right?[/quote]

Well first of all, as far as I know, vast majority of LP'rs can't live of the money they make off of LP's. Something like that just isn't profitable enough, so why would anyone start making LP's just to make money.

It's about magnitude here, the same reason why a thief stealing food to feed himself is different from one thieving to become rich. Both are legally wrong. In a moral view one the first case falls in a grey area. LP'rs making money of their videos is a grey area. Nintendo beating them up and taking their money in my eyes is a lot more "evil" than LP'rs making what really ends up being 100-200 per month if their avg-ly popular for their work.

EDIT: Also, yes that is the problem of the 21st century isn't, everything revolves around money and it shouldn't. I am sure most LP'rs who did it 95%+ for other reasons than the money will continue, but there will be LP'rs who are "put out of work" due to this, because they can't allow themselves to spend so much time working on their LPs because they need to go get a real job and make moeny because that is what the world revolves around.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

canadamus_prime:

Well I don't know. I don't watch LP's nor do I know the exact ins and outs of copyright law or fair use, but nevertheless this still seems like one hell of a dick move to me.

But how can you be in a position to call it a dick move if you don't watch LPs or understand copyright law?

Every other major publisher and developer has already been doing this and harsher. Microsoft got LPs of Halo 4 taken down last year. Sega got LPs of Shining Force taken down. Not just the ad revenue, entire video channels got hit with copyright claims.

How is allowing LPs to stay on youtube on a non-profit scheme outside of licensing agreements more of a dick move in comparison?

Ok so it's slightly less of a dick move than other publisher's are pulling, but it's still a dick move. I mean, again I don't watch LP's, but regardless of the quality of the LP I don't see how it's any different that say The Escapist or Gamespot doing a video review of the bloody thing except that it covers the entire game.

canadamus_prime:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

canadamus_prime:

Well I don't know. I don't watch LP's nor do I know the exact ins and outs of copyright law or fair use, but nevertheless this still seems like one hell of a dick move to me.

But how can you be in a position to call it a dick move if you don't watch LPs or understand copyright law?

Every other major publisher and developer has already been doing this and harsher. Microsoft got LPs of Halo 4 taken down last year. Sega got LPs of Shining Force taken down. Not just the ad revenue, entire video channels got hit with copyright claims.

How is allowing LPs to stay on youtube on a non-profit scheme outside of licensing agreements more of a dick move in comparison?

Ok so it's slightly less of a dick move than other publisher's are pulling, but it's still a dick move. I mean, again I don't watch LP's, but regardless of the quality of the LP I don't see how it's any different that say The Escapist or Gamespot doing a video review of the bloody thing except that it covers the entire game.

Honestly, I think Nintendo's the bigger dick here.

Others: "No, you cant use our property to make your videos."
Nintendo: "I will let you make your videos, but I am going to take every benefit of the hard work you put into this."

Mr.Pandah:
As an LP'er, or once was, the time and editing that is actually put into making a decent video is not given as much credit as people think. I would love to just hit record and have my audio and video files automatically synced up and cutting out unnecessary noise and parts that don't need to be in the video amongst many other things.

Anyways, I think Nintendo shouldn't have the ability to profit off of things like this. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Welcome to the beginning of CISPA, and Nintendo is starting a very bad presiding case.

As an LP'er, or once was, the time and editing that is actually put into making a decent video is not given as much credit as people think. I would love to just hit record and have my audio and video files automatically synced up and cutting out unnecessary noise and parts that don't need to be in the video amongst many other things.

Anyways, I think Nintendo shouldn't have the ability to profit off of things like this. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Desert Punk:

canadamus_prime:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

But how can you be in a position to call it a dick move if you don't watch LPs or understand copyright law?

Every other major publisher and developer has already been doing this and harsher. Microsoft got LPs of Halo 4 taken down last year. Sega got LPs of Shining Force taken down. Not just the ad revenue, entire video channels got hit with copyright claims.

How is allowing LPs to stay on youtube on a non-profit scheme outside of licensing agreements more of a dick move in comparison?

Ok so it's slightly less of a dick move than other publisher's are pulling, but it's still a dick move. I mean, again I don't watch LP's, but regardless of the quality of the LP I don't see how it's any different that say The Escapist or Gamespot doing a video review of the bloody thing except that it covers the entire game.

Honestly, I think Nintendo's the bigger dick here.

Others: "No, you cant use our property to make your videos."
Nintendo: "I will let you make your videos, but I am going to take every benefit of the hard work you put into this."

Either way both are still dick moves.

Imma just leave this comment from a Dtoid member (SeymorDuncan17):

"We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property."

Bravo.

Like seriously. Bravo.

I may get hate for this, but YT'ers honestly shouldn't expect to have complete ownership of that revenue they see. Or, really, any ownership. Any of that original content or content they simple base off established IP's, they're more than welcome to that cash flow (although, even there you have some things to consider).

This is why I have continually denied a YT partnership whenever it's brought up on my channel for my more popular videos (and sometimes not-so-popular). It just feels wrong to be getting paid for that, with no permission from the content holders.

If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that Nintendo is commendable for not just straight taking the videos down. Like Ponce said, they actually seem to want to support the YT community rather than just wanna take what's their's.

Besides all of that, is this really what YT has become? What happened to people making videos because they were passionate and wanted to share and you know, be a good community. These days people are just doing it for the money (that pewdiepie dumbass is a prime example).

They're not blocking the videos or giving out copyright strikes. They just don't want people to grossly profit over something that they have made. I'm sure that other game companies do the same thing.

Wow... and people thought the Shining Force thing with Sega was bad. This... this is a whole new level. Some people actually make their living off playing games on youtube. I know it's something that is grossly overpaid but entertainment as an industry is weird. Having said that, people are making money and living thanks to people enjoying their work. Now Nintendo swoops in and decides it's their money instead. Giving Nentendo free reign on that will only spur other companies to do it. Guess what happens when some of these youtubers stop getting money? They stop making content. Any who have been legetimatly funny will dry up, those who would do it for free but wouldn't give a damn become more populus, and the companies continue to milk money for the efforts of someone else. I know it's a blood thirsty industry but this opens a new can of worms . Shows like Game Grumps, Two Best friends, Criken,Chuggaconroy etc will cease to be.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here