Ah, finally, a post with some substance on your part. Good job.
I don't need your approval, just your response will do.
And yet many of the counter-claims are not only arbitrary but entirely fictitious. How they spend "thousands" and "work for countless hours" being chief among them.
Sloppy editing and single take productions take maybe an hour to do, less if you're experienced.
And that assumes the player had a good run.
Proper editing, synching audio, or commenting on top of existing footage in a way that isn't shit takes practice and usually multiple takes unless you're really experienced. Multiply the time spent editing clips (which you may not even use) and work for gathering footage by the number of takes as appropriate.
Yes, that often adds up to multiple hours.
Being witty memorable and entertaining on top of that is an even bigger challenge.
Some Lets Plays even run off written scripts.
In any case, the really sloppy LPers you're railing against are by far and large NOT the ones being offered ad-revenue unless they're exceptional in some way or another, and even if they're being offered ad-revenue, it won't be all that much unless they somehow distinguish themselves in some manner.
As someone who has done LPs at an amateur level (which is the source of most of the complaints against this policy), neither of these is a true statement.
For the people who are using professional editing and recording, I know it is, because I've worked with, and repaired that equipment before (friends in COMs and Film class, and I'm getting into Digital Photography and Recording to supplement my career in Meteorology).
I know for a fact it isn't cheap. A digital SLR with anything above ASS resolution is easily 2 grand.
While the camera won't be used for an LP, most of the equipment and software will be unless you want it to be some shit crapped out by FRAPS or Vegas.
But enough of the anecdotal crap, the biggest problem I have with your argument about marginalizing the work and cost is remarkably simple: Why does it even matter if the bar for entry is low?
Mocking the cheapness of production is an incredibly petty and shallow attempt to undercut the value others place in the entertainment. Even your little spiel about Avertisers putting in more effort is silly when you actually think about it (advertisements in practice convert what would normally be a blunt Monetary Cost in an Opportunity Cost, which is far easier for most of the market to bear.)
The ability to express and comment on things you enjoy is one of the marvels of the 21st century.
Advertisers love it because it gets them hits, LPers love it because they can make money doing something they enjoy (and how DARE they do that!), and Nintendo et al has noting to lose because, hey, exposure drives up interest in gaming which helps drive up demand. People wouldn't do LPs if they didn't care, and by extension, they wouldn't have an audience.
So really, it makes no sense to mock and marginalize the ability for gamers do that in the first place.
I might have been more inclined to believe your "Entitlement" argument if Nintendo were losing anything, and by simple logic, they aren't nor can they. So I'm not feeling particularly supportive of this decision, copyright law or not.
So you can't accuse me of "moving the goalposts", I'm simply replying to THEIR statements while THEY move the goalposts. Yet their sentiments are reiterated as universal "fact" whereas my own claims from experience are obviously "lies", with absolutely no logical basis behind either of those assertions.
No, you're definitely Moving the Goalposts with your judgmental attitude towards what qualifies as "real work".
If your opponents are guilty of working with equally arbitrary arguments, that's their problem and yes, their logic is faulty. But just because their logic is faulty doesn't magically mean YOURS isn't.
This isn't a sport where one foul overrides another.
A fallacy is a fallacy, no matter how it's wielded.
Which is my point: There is no legal precedent, and until legal precedent exists that contradicts the claims of Fair Use on an LP, it's reasonable to presume (given the way the law is worded) that an LP would generally not fall within its confines.
If it isn't definitively against the law, it's an assumed liberty until precedence is established.
However, in practical terms, Youtube is more inclined to support the Big Rich Media with deep pockets and lawyers than the regular schmos, law or no law.
The sad truth in practice is that outside of criminal court, a law is nearly meaningless unless you can afford to take it to court.
This is likely the same reason that Rifftrax does not tend to sell the movie along with the audio, because they realize that Fair Use would be a hard sell in that case and they lack distribution rights. And Rifftrax is perhaps the best model of comparison given that they are producing a relatively similar product (or at least it's certainly better than the stupid car analogy another person used on me earlier).
The problem with the Rifftrax analogy is that it doesn't completely encompass the same appeal as Lets Plays and their utility.
Hear me out.
Films and music are passive experiences. You can play a song or a movie and it will run its course (even without an audience). Games don't work that way. Plugging in a copy of Super Mario Galaxy and then sitting there will result in an extremely limited venue of entertainment or "experience", as the buzzword goes.
This is why I have problems with the argument that if a person watches someone else play the game, it's a given that they receive the same experience by proxy as if it were film or music.
But that isn't a guarantee. Player input varies, and if it's GAME, player input should matter.
There's a world of difference between watching this:
And actually doing it yourself.
You can claim that this guy's commentary is useless or cheap in the grand scheme of things, but it's damn informative and most importantly, entertaining.
That is value that neither the game nor Capcom provides, and that's the part I am not opposed to defending.
Given recent moderation action in this thread, I would say that I've been far closer to following forum rules than those who have been attacking me. But you're welcome to read that however you like, as it certainly doesn't bother me.
Any excuse to not learn eh?
"Learn from your mistakes while you can afford to make them."
Wasn't referring to you, so there's no need to be defensive.
I know, you should really stop looking so deeply into my neutral phrasing.
That kind of stress will give you frown lines.
I won't disagree with that, which is why I laid out rather clearly that my stance on LPs was my opinion.
No, you didn't. I'll demonstrate.
The fact that some people fund their entire livelihoods on LPs is honestly a bit disgusting when you think about it. Every other form of entertainment you enjoy involves a hell of a lot more work than an LP. Movies require not only monetary investment, but actors, scenes, etc, and everyone works on it for months.
1) You are GRAMMATICALLY, MECHANICALLY speaking FOR the audience here; it cannot be your opinion because it includes EVERYONE.
Either this is poor phrasing on your part, or empty pretense. What it certainly ISN'T is a "Clear stance of opinion".
2) That line is phrased in the Imperative Stance; you are TELLING us what to think, not what YOU think.
Don't equate the two. Especially in text, as there is a WORLD of difference between them.
If you're declaring an opinion in text, state it as an opinion. Use personal qualifiers, and where possible to avoid pissing people off, passive tone. You look and act more mature and sensible when you do that.
When you phrase something in an Imperative or Expository stance, it's assumed you're speaking from a position of authority, aka, "fact". You're saying what IS, and not just what you think it is.
The only part of my original argument that I asserted as "fact" was that Nintendo is legally justified in this (and they are). Other people then jumped on me with ad hominem and other ridiculous assertions that I then dismissed by pointing out my own actual experience in the field, and the fact that other LPers have stood up to defend Nintendo's point of view.
If you disagree with me and with them, that's fine, but acting like I'm somehow "factually" inaccurate when there is no such evidence ANYWHERE in the thread that I am....that's intellectually dishonest, at best.
I respect that the legal advantage is with Nintendo, but I do not agree with it, nor the way you're presenting it here.
Take up your grievances with them. Moving on.
You don't refuse to follow a law just because you don't agree with it, even if it's arguably not a fair law. You protest within the confines of law and try to get it changed fairly. When you outright refuse to follow the law and then complain when consequences are slapped down onto you from On High, sorry, but you garter no sympathy from me. I've had YT ask me to remove videos due to potential copyright problems and have complied every time I was asked, without complaint.
Fine, but I don't want your sympathy, just more tact and less preachy nonsense.
Nintendo already pays people to do LPs for them. Those partners were unaffected by this.
If people want to be paid to LP for Nintendo, they need only try to obtain a legal partnership through Nintendo itself, or a related gaming group that has a long-standing agreement with Nintendo. There are already a number of major LPers who have done precisely that. The ones who are complaining are those who have not attempted to build those partnerships for whatever reason, and I can't say I feel all that much sympathy for their plight if they're not trying to take the legal steps necessary to protect themselves from prosecution.
Honestly, this is one place where I disagree with "sanctioning" on principle.
Forgive the "hipster-ness" of what follows; this is just my opinion on this (all of the below, just so we're clear).
Read it if you want.