Nintendo Suddenly Claims Ownership Of Many YouTube Videos

[Snotnarok]

Snip

There's work involved plenty of it and you're blowing it off as nothing because you don't understand the work involved. Also blowing off the other point of the devs were already paid for the game in question so they already got the money.

I work with computers, I work with tech and you really come off as many clients I've had who don't understand the work involved and believe a website is made with a few clicks of a mouse followed by a automate button again thinking the hardest part is scanning artwork.

Your truck logic makes no sense, no one is being paid because for accidental views, these are views and subscribers, aka they come back to youtube and view their vids/ads and make youtube money. My car logic is the car/game is helping you make money, so by your logic you owe the car company money for the car helping you get to work despite you already having paid it off entirely much like the LPers with these games. But the devs deserve more money? Well the people buying the game because of the LP (Like I have) would probably account for that.

"There would be zero attraction to LPs at all if the game content itself was removed, " so talkshows, Tosh .0, sports commentators? I guess they don't deserve pay for being entertaining and just making commentary over footage that they have no involvement in. After all the football players run and get brain damage while some guy yaks into a mic.

They get paid because they get views and subs/give reason for people to come to youtube and see adverts, are entertaining enough for people to come back.

LPs have benefits to devs anyway, it makes people want to buy the game, I've bought several games off LPs and had I not seen them I'd not have paid the money. So yes the devs do get something out of it, customers, because I know I'm not the only one who's done this.

Either you're trolling or you just have no idea what work goes into these things and your opinion only has so much weight when you don't know the work involved.

 

[Atmos Duality]

This is too funny. I can't comment, or I'd ruin it. I must watch instead.
*munches popcorn*

Either you're trolling or you just have no idea what work goes into these things and your opinion only has so much weight when you don't know the work involved.

So far his(her?) arguments have included:

-Self congratulatory remarks
-Marginalization of points based on a purely arbitrary definition of "real work/job"
-A massive strawman about the pay disparity between developers and LPers (even though they work in related but separate markets..)
-TWO moon logic accusations of hypocrisy against a vague someone whom he is projecting ASSUMPTIONS onto (a someone, who, as far as we know, only exists in his head).
-A half assed supporting argument that apparently isn't related to the topic
-Presuming to think for everyone reading at least once.


And my favorite:
-A Parthian Shot that attempts to discredit everyone who participated in the argument. Which is hilarious because I don't think he realizes that he just discredited himself too.
With a promise that he is done with the argument (I can't wait to see if he breaks that promise).

I'd retort, but I'm past trying to reason with the clearly unreasonable.

 

[UltraPic]

I'm glad Nintendo completely misses what LPs have done for many games

I totally agree, it's not as if nintendo have put up there own lp's and payed for the services of prolific lp'ers to promote games.

 

[Eve Charm]

Nintendo doesn't really need LP's to promote a Nintendo first party game. They can pay for real advertising, and don't need help getting green lit or kick started and what not. They say mario or luigi and people come running with open wallets.

And aside from a few prolific lpers, most people are there to watch someone play the game first, listen to the person 2nd.

If your Lets playing just to make money, go play something else. It's not free advertising if someone is giving out money.

 

[WeepingAngels]

And aside from a few prolific lpers, most people are there to watch someone play the game first, listen to the person 2nd.

That's not true for me. I am there for the commentary, I like to hear people talk who have nice voices and accents. Of course, you probably have evidence that most people are there for the opposite?

If your Lets playing just to make money, go play something else. It's not free advertising if someone is giving out money.

If Nintendo is not paying for the advertising, then it is free advertising for them.

 

[afroebob]

When the money pot starts to run dry...

 

[Eve Charm]

And aside from a few prolific lpers, most people are there to watch someone play the game first, listen to the person 2nd.

That's not true for me. I am there for the commentary, I like to hear people talk who have nice voices and accents. Of course, you probably have evidence that most people are there for the opposite?

If your Lets playing just to make money, go play something else. It's not free advertising if someone is giving out money.

If Nintendo is not paying for the advertising, then it is free advertising for them.

Someone is getting paid themselves for using a Nintendo product. If anyone should be getting paid for the lets plays, it should be the maker of the product getting shown.

And I'll believe the latter when we get an article about matel taking the advertising fees of people playing barbie horse adventures, and someone caring.

Furthermore the lets player should be glad that nintendo didn't remove the videos because they can still use those videos of them playing the hot new release to get people to look at their other videos where no on cares if they get the ad revenue or not.

 

[WeepingAngels]

And aside from a few prolific lpers, most people are there to watch someone play the game first, listen to the person 2nd.

That's not true for me. I am there for the commentary, I like to hear people talk who have nice voices and accents. Of course, you probably have evidence that most people are there for the opposite?

If your Lets playing just to make money, go play something else. It's not free advertising if someone is giving out money.

If Nintendo is not paying for the advertising, then it is free advertising for them.

Someone is getting paid themselves for using a Nintendo product. If anyone should be getting paid for the lets plays, it should be the maker of the product getting shown.

And I'll believe the latter when we get an article about matel taking the advertising fees of people playing barbie horse adventures, and someone caring.

So all you really have is your opinion that people watch LP's to watch the game first and commentator second. That's all I have too, I was really hoping there was some evidence to show one thing or the other.

I don't see how SOMEONE getting paid still doesn't give Nintendo free advertising. Anyway, if I watch a video where someone is showing me how to change the water pump in my truck, does Chevy deserve some money?

 

[likalaruku]

A huge chunk of reviewers I'm subscribed to review Nintendo games, so I expect to be hearing about this for at least every day for the rest of the month. Highest probabilities on Tamashii Hiroka, Yuriofwind, TheJWittz, Peanubuttergamer, & JonTron. Then again, none of them have stated that the make any revenue from their videos.

I'm okay with this on a per video basis. I mean some of those videos are Lets Plays or Walkthroughs that show the entire game, & I can see Nintendo's claim to that, but the others are reviews, previews, homages, history ofs, speculations, merchandise showcases, fan game/rom hack updates, creepypastas, fan animation, & cosplay parodies, which all seems like Fair Use to me.

 

[Eve Charm]

Oh so as long as they say it's "free advertising" they can make money off it? So like those streaming sites that make money selling HD streams of stuff is in the right to because hey they are still streaming something for free, and it's advertising, even though they have no permission to do so.

And about the chevy no but say you were reading the manual of the pump and showing all the little pictures and stuff off in the book, I do think the company of the water pump can say " hey your showing off my product, they are only really there to see my product, if your reading it with a funny voice or not, they should be entitled to the ad fees that you received if they choose to do so.

 

[Snotnarok]

I'd retort, but I'm past trying to reason with the clearly unreasonable.

Well, yes I'm trying to see how far this moon logic goes because this job exsists, LPing isn't exactly a new idea so it's very interesting to watch logic this skewed come out. Already my theory is he has a wheel attached to his side because he walks on an angle.

 

[WeepingAngels]

And about the chevy no but say you were reading the manual of the pump and showing all the little pictures and stuff off in the book, I do think the company of the water pump can say " hey your showing off my product, they are only really there to see my product, if your reading it with a funny voice or not, they should be entitled to the ad fees that you received if they choose to do so.

So why can't Chevy say that? Chevy sold that guy the truck and installed in that truck was the water pump and now he is making money off of advertising for a video teaching people how to change the water pump.

Of course, what I am suggesting is ridiculous but it really isn't any different than buying a Nintendo game and teaching people how to play it in a Let's Play. People watching a guy change a water pump still have to change their own water pump and people watching a Let's Play still have to buy and play the game themselves. Watching a game and playing a game are different things.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Basically, what they are doing is the equivalent of a chess set maker demanding money because its chess set was video taped being used.

Right, it's like Hoover demanding money from people who are seen on video using a Hoover vacuum.

 

[Eve Charm]

And about the chevy no but say you were reading the manual of the pump and showing all the little pictures and stuff off in the book, I do think the company of the water pump can say " hey your showing off my product, they are only really there to see my product, if your reading it with a funny voice or not, they should be entitled to the ad fees that you received if they choose to do so.

So why can't Chevy say that? Chevy sold that guy the truck and installed in that truck was the water pump and now he is making money off of advertising for a video teaching people how to change the water pump.

Of course, what I am suggesting is ridiculous but it really isn't any different than buying a Nintendo game and teaching people how to play it in a Let's Play. People watching a guy change a water pump still have to change their own water pump and people watching a Let's Play still have to buy and play the game themselves. Watching a game and playing a game are different things.

Actually it isn't ridiculous but it's the whole question here, is the video really about the chevy, then chevy should have the rights to it, is it really about the water pump then why not the water pump, if it's really about the guy whats the point of the chevy or the water pump being the main focus, you don't need either to tell people how to put in a pump ((ala podcast))

And lets play aren't teaching players the game, they are just playing the game start to finish or where ever they decide to stop.

If nintendo can say " make videos of our games and we'll take them down" Why not " your not going to make the money off our games. Real answer is nintendo doesn't need that kind of advertising, They pay plenty for their first party advertising and they do it in a way to not spoil their games so people would buy it rather then just watch it be played.

 

[WeepingAngels]

And about the chevy no but say you were reading the manual of the pump and showing all the little pictures and stuff off in the book, I do think the company of the water pump can say " hey your showing off my product, they are only really there to see my product, if your reading it with a funny voice or not, they should be entitled to the ad fees that you received if they choose to do so.

So why can't Chevy say that? Chevy sold that guy the truck and installed in that truck was the water pump and now he is making money off of advertising for a video teaching people how to change the water pump.

Of course, what I am suggesting is ridiculous but it really isn't any different than buying a Nintendo game and teaching people how to play it in a Let's Play. People watching a guy change a water pump still have to change their own water pump and people watching a Let's Play still have to buy and play the game themselves. Watching a game and playing a game are different things.

Actually it isn't ridiculous but it's the whole question here, is the video really about the chevy, then chevy should have the rights to it, is it really about the water pump then why not the water pump, if it's really about the guy whats the point of the chevy or the water pump being the main focus, you don't need either to tell people how to put in a pump ((ala podcast))

And lets play aren't teaching players the game, they are just playing the game start to finish or where ever they decide to stop.

If nintendo can say " make videos of our games and we'll take them down" Why not " your not going to make the money off our games. Real answer is nintendo doesn't need that kind of advertising, They pay plenty for their first party advertising and they do it in a way to not spoil their games so people would buy it rather then just watch it be played.

It doesn't matter if it's about the Chevy or the water pump as both were sold by Chevy (the truck was sold with the water pump pre-installed). Also, changing a water pump in a Chevy truck may not be the same as changing the water pump in a Ford car and therefore the video is about a specific Chevy truck. Do you think people should own anything they buy? Should the man making the video also have to pay Snap-On because he used Snap-On tools? See how ridiculous this is getting?

I have checked LP's many times to get help with a game.

Nintendo may not need that kind of advertising (though they could use help with the Wii U in my opinion) but they are getting negative press over this and that is something they don't need.

 

[Eve Charm]

Well the answer is if your just showing the way to change a chevy pump then chevy if they choose should be entitled to do what they want with it, so should ford, and yes even snap on if your going to put them in it. if your using their products why don't they have a say in it specifically if your making a profit off their stuff. Profit being anything like selling tickets, selling walkthrus or just spamming your own advertisements.

There are reasons why people blur out names of products in videos and why no name brands are shown unless they are advertised because they can get sued for it or lose their profits. Games should be no different. This isn't something new on the table here.

If your stuck in a game you could also check an faq, or you could check something like a paid and approved IGN walkthru or something.

This won't stop let's players. Just lets players that play nintendo games will more be about getting their name out or I don't know, Not doing it for the money? while the money ones just play other games.

Well as it kind of goes there is no such thing as bad press or the only bad press is no press.

 

[likalaruku]

I don't know how to embed Blip videos, but there's a half hour debate on it at Blistered Thumbs. Even though one of the guys makes LPs, they're taking Nintendo's side.

http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2013/05/thumb-wars-ep-37-ninten-donts-of-lps-twitter/

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well as it kind of goes there is no such thing as bad press or the only bad press is no press.

Remember Adam Orth? He was sacked for creating bad press for Microsoft.
Bad press can end careers and ruin lives; don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[Eve Charm]

He got sacked for speaking as a Microsoft rep unauthorized and not making a statement that MS would make. It's a whole different thing for firing someone for basically badmouthing customers or their job, that happens a lot.

Now for microsoft, yes they got bad press, but they got a lot of buzz about the new system that they wouldn't otherwise have had at the moment. Everyone was talking about the new xbox and will it have online only and not and they still are.