uggg Nintendo you never cease to amaze me. Still I do have a question, does this count for retro games?
Nintendo Suddenly Claims Ownership Of Many YouTube Videos
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Do you think LPs would cease to happen because of this? Your points are all completely valid and I do use LPs to decide on game purchases. But I think people will do this for free. That is the effect of globalization of the internet. There will always be people who are passionate enough about this kind of thing to do the work for free.CriticalMiss said:
Understanding this as a way to recomp revenues lost to the death of video game guides is a little more reasonable. My guess is that LPers will just get smarter about the way they do it and add enough personal content to sidestep Nintendo's claim to it. This is like the time that guy made a Harry Potter Encyclopedia without adding any additional content of their own. Had they added significant non-copywritten content they would have been allowed to proceed. Instead, they lost the case because they were just reorganizing another person's work and then selling it.
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?
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.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said: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:CriticalMiss said:
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.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
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 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)Mr Binary said:
Not gonna lie... I'm disappointed with Nintendo. I hoped they could be better than this.
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? ¬__¬j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Wow, assuming a lot there, aren't you!?BiH-Kira said:
I guess people watch Freeman's Mind solely for the gameplay, too.
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.
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.
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. XÞUltraPic said:
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.
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.
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.
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.