Nintendo Suddenly Claims Ownership Of Many YouTube Videos

[CriticalMiss]

SNIP

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that people wouldn't stop making them. Just that people could choose to become a sort of semi-official provider of LPs of Nintendo games. You could still go rogue and make one anyway, people who are popular could give Nintendo the finger and carry on but those who are just getting in to making videos might choose to become a partner with them.

And I didn't think of the guide angle, but that could be one way for companies to advertise this. Rather than watching some guy play the game you could watch a video walkthrough with the commentary being hints, tips and strategies. A lot of LPs I've watched are people playing the game for the first time so obviously it is fairly useless for figuring out the best way to beat a level/boss unless the player is pretty good.

 

[Nihilm]

The sad thing here, guys is that the only game companies that actually have Free Use policies on their content (You can make anything with their content and distrubute/monetize it as long as the audience can access it for free) are Blizzard, Valve, Mojang, Activision and Electronic Arts. It's why Blizzard bans premium mods for World of Warcraft, because it goes against their policy of allowing users to access it for free.

Everyone else is simply using their rights as copyright holders. We may not like it, we may not like copyright laws, but simply not liking them doesn't mean they stop existing and stop meaning anything. The idea of "Copyright law is bullshit so I shouldn't have to follow it" is not going to win that battle.

When you make a project using someone else's work, you ALWAYS run the risk of copyright law coming down to burn your ass. And until the laws change, that will be how it works. You just suck it up and deal with it.

One of the best ways to change laws are for everyone to stop following them at the same time. It is the fastest and most effective way to get rid of them. It just doesn't work because no community or humanity in general has no unity.

Just being lawful shouldn't be commended and all laws shouldn't apply in every case.If right and wrong was so black and white, then there would be no reason for courts, since there shouldn't be any reasons to argue laws.

 

[blizzaradragon]

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

One of the big things is that professional reviewers have agreements which let them use the licenses and thus allows them to use screenshots/footage for the games they're reviewing. This is also why groups such as Machinima are allowed to do the things they do, as they make sure to get the licenses to use the footage beforehand and thus their partners can do reviews, Let's Plays, etc.(although there might be some bumps in the road while the content ID matches get sorted out)

OT: What I don't understand is why Nintendo doing this is suddenly a big deal. They're being a lot more lax than other companies such as Sega, such that they allow people to still do Let's Plays but they just can't profit illegally. Where was this when other companies did the same thing a few years back? Hell, there was even an article on here showcasing Microsoft doing THE EXACT SAME THING back in October, yet I don't remember seeing anywhere near this level of backlash. I admit that at least one major part of why this is so overblown is because content ID matching can't always distinguish what is "legit" and what isn't, but that's not Nintendo's fault. Blame YouTube for that. If anything, all this really does(once YouTube stops being crap and everything gets fully sorted out anyway) is prevent people who are profiting without the licenses from making money. Something that is also against YouTube's user agreement anyway. Those that either do it for fun(such as myself) or those with partnerships that have said licenses(such as Two Best Friends Play on Machinima) will be fine.

 

[Entitled]

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?

If anything, people who don't uderstand copyright law have an easier way of telling apart right from wrong, as it is self-evident, unlike those who are blinded by a "legality equals morality" fallacy.

Through this thread, you have made many justifications why what Nintendo is doing is legal, and it is "their right". But this absolutely doesn't explain how it is a right ting to do, in any moral sense.

Publishers having absolute control over who uses the product of their work, is not a good thing. It stiffles creativity, controls individual rights, and it's a petty way of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Regardless, if someone is making money off of YOUR work, wouldn't you get kinda peeved and want to get that money that rightfully belongs to you?

Of course not!

If I'm already done with my own work, profited from it by selling to those who chose to buy, and "my work" is still out there in the public as a positive externality of the result of my labour, it would be incredibly petty and despicable thing to stop other people from using it as a basis to create their own works with their own labour.

If you do, I guess you are also the kind of person who would work hard at planting a garden, then build a 3 meter high wall around it just so your neighbors can't enjoy it for free, or heaven forbid, financially benefit from house values slightly rising from the pretty neighborhood.

Positive externalities are a good thing.

That after you have benefited from your labor, something remains that others can also benefit from, is a good thing.

The publishers, that believe that they are entitled to blocking every possible value of their work for others, are not just greedy, but spiteful control freaks who would get rid of every piece of Fair Use and Public Domain if they could just so they have more authority.

 

[Nihilm]

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

One of the big things is that professional reviewers have agreements which let them use the licenses and thus allows them to use screenshots/footage for the games they're reviewing. This is also why groups such as Machinima are allowed to do the things they do, as they make sure to get the licenses to use the footage beforehand and thus their partners can do reviews, Let's Plays, etc.(although there might be some bumps in the road while the content ID matches get sorted out)

OT: What I don't understand is why Nintendo doing this is suddenly a big deal. They're being a lot more lax than other companies such as Sega, such that they allow people to still do Let's Plays but they just can't profit illegally. Where was this when other companies did the same thing a few years back? Hell, there was even an article on here showcasing Microsoft doing THE EXACT SAME THING back in October, yet I don't remember seeing anywhere near this level of backlash. I admit that at least one major part of why this is so overblown is because content ID matching can't always distinguish what is "legit" and what isn't, but that's not Nintendo's fault. Blame YouTube for that. If anything, all this really does(once YouTube stops being crap and everything gets fully sorted out anyway) is prevent people who are profiting without the licenses from making money. Something that is also against YouTube's user agreement anyway. Those that either do it for fun(such as myself) or those with partnerships that have said licenses(such as Two Best Friends Play on Machinima) will be fine.

Because it got less coverage than what microsoft did? I don't know why? I didn't even know that microsoft did something like this back then. I guess it is chance. Nintendo got unlucky, doesnt change the discussion value of what is going on nor does it justify what nintendo or sega or microsoft or anyone has done.

 

[Nihilm]

*snip*

Exactly this, soemthing being legal does not make it right.

Legality cannot be argued here, it is legal, otherwise Nintendo would not have made the move, they checked if they could do it legally.

Morality can be argued here, because soemthign being legal and moral are not the one and the same.

 

[Entitled]

Everyone else is simply using their rights as copyright holders. We may not like it, we may not like copyright laws, but simply not liking them doesn't mean they stop existing and stop meaning anything. The idea of "Copyright law is bullshit so I shouldn't have to follow it" is not going to win that battle.

Well, then what else is going to "win that battle"? Do you have a clever idea for getting rid of copyright without pointing out that they are bullshit?

You just suck it up and deal with it.

Yeah, that will work... NOT!

Pretty much every minor complaint and whining, is more effective at establishing the fact that copyright is not infallible, and preparing the ground for declaring it to be invalid, than a freaking "deal with it".

Every time somone tries to claim that publishers' monopoly on IP is a kind of "property" and by violating it you are taking away something from them, they need to be called out on it. They first of all need to be reminded that copyright is just a reguation that WE can decide whether or not it should exist, and if yes, how extensive it should be, instead of just declaring it to be all publishers' funamental right to property".

 

[Nihilm]

The sad thing here, guys is that the only game companies that actually have Free Use policies on their content (You can make anything with their content and distrubute/monetize it as long as the audience can access it for free) are Blizzard, Valve, Mojang, Activision and Electronic Arts. It's why Blizzard bans premium mods for World of Warcraft, because it goes against their policy of allowing users to access it for free.

Everyone else is simply using their rights as copyright holders. We may not like it, we may not like copyright laws, but simply not liking them doesn't mean they stop existing and stop meaning anything. The idea of "Copyright law is bullshit so I shouldn't have to follow it" is not going to win that battle.

When you make a project using someone else's work, you ALWAYS run the risk of copyright law coming down to burn your ass. And until the laws change, that will be how it works. You just suck it up and deal with it.

One of the best ways to change laws are for everyone to stop following them at the same time. It is the fastest and most effective way to get rid of them. It just doesn't work because no community or humanity in general has no unity.

Just being lawful shouldn't be commended and all laws shouldn't apply in every case.If right and wrong was so black and white, then there would be no reason for courts, since there shouldn't be any reasons to argue laws.

No, the best way to have a law changed is to vote that way. Get involved in politics and try to actually make a difference in the world. Mass disobedience is only going to come with criminal charges.

Maybe this is just me, but I don't feel like going to jail for some bullshit sense of righteous virtue. It's the Lawful-Chaotic Good-Evil contrast.

I work with my friends on a Youtube Channel, and we always get hit with Content ID notices. The guy who heads the whole thing takes it in stride, because he has researched and understands copyright law. When he sees an invalid claim, he will dispute it. In fact, there have been numerous occasions where the comapny making the claim (usually FOX, but also Disney, Hasbro LLC, and CapCom) have agreed with his dispute and allowed him to monetize his content.

We benefit in that regard because he KNOWS copyright law. Most gamers who complain about it only know that it exists. They do not know the deeper logic behind it, and as such do not know how best to exploit it.

As the old saying goes: "Why fight the system, when you can exploit the system?"

Why fight the system, when you can exploit the system?

With that philosophy, the world would never get better. Laws have been changed by mass disobedienced, they are called revolutions in history. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised stuff like this popping up more, considering the wealth distribution and the fact that money controls everything. Eventually people will be pushed to the point where a lot of blood will be shed and a revolution will start. It might fail, it might not. Yes it very much is the lawful-chaotic good-evil contrast. But I respect someone who is Chaotic good a lot more than someone who is lawful neutral

 

[Entitled]

No, the best way to have a law changed is to vote that way. Get involved in politics and try to actually make a difference in the world. Mass disobedience is only going to come with criminal charges.

MLK and Gandhi would have disagreed with you here.

Or if you want a less self-glamorizing example, then there is always the Prohibition and it's crash and burn.

Civil Disobedience, whether inspired by a moral statement or a personal attempt at doing what seems to be reasonable for yourself, is useful by demonstrating to the public just how fucked up the law is to begin with, and gathering sympathy to your cause.

Yes, voting is what will ultimately change the law, but won't get to the point of there can even exist a significant Pirate Party platform, if we "just suck it up and deal with it".

But getting burned by sucky copyright law and then whining about it on Internet forums, *is* part of that process.

 

[blizzaradragon]

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.

Something interesting here actually is how late to the party Nintendo is on this. This whole debacle made me realize how much more people LP Nintendo games compared to others(especially some of the bigger names, for example NintendoCapriSun does almost exclusively Nintendo games), and doing some "research" i.e. a myriad of Google searches I found out why. Nintendo was one of few companies that wouldn't pursue either ad revenue or just flat out take down videos. So in essence, they are doing what other companies have been doing for years. A great example was that Microsoft did this same thing back in October, which was covered here as well. Guess Nintendo just got the bad end of the deal.

That being said, some of the shows you mentioned will still be around. I can't speak for all of them, but I know Game Grumps doesn't use ad revenue so this won't effect them and Two Best Friends Play is partnered with Machinima which already has the license agreements in place to use Nintendo content. That said there will probably be some sorting out as YouTube's content ID system is very fickle which is why some videos that have said license agreements are being targeted. It'll get sorted out though. Essentially the people who only have this to fear are the people who don't have the appropriate agreements and still want to monetize their LPs, which is against YouTube's user agreement in the first place.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

Good thing Nintendo doesn't make any games worth watching.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Fair Use doesn't apply here. Fair Use is meant to apply to excerpts, quotes or parts of footage taken from other media, used for educational purposes, but interspersed with content created by the user themselves. The Jimquisition falls under Fair Use, as the snippets of gameplay are interspersed with Jim talking about stuff, and various pretty pictures of things.

Yeah, except that Nintendo hit REVIEWS as well. Not just LPs - ANY video on You Tube that contains Nintendo gameplay, even review with Fair-Use clips like those seen in the Jimquisition, have had their revenue taken.

You are correct that Lets Plays are not covered under Fair Use, but Nintendo has also clearly violated Fair Use by attacking even those YouTube videos that fell under Fair Use.

 

[blizzaradragon]

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

One of the big things is that professional reviewers have agreements which let them use the licenses and thus allows them to use screenshots/footage for the games they're reviewing. This is also why groups such as Machinima are allowed to do the things they do, as they make sure to get the licenses to use the footage beforehand and thus their partners can do reviews, Let's Plays, etc.(although there might be some bumps in the road while the content ID matches get sorted out)

OT: What I don't understand is why Nintendo doing this is suddenly a big deal. They're being a lot more lax than other companies such as Sega, such that they allow people to still do Let's Plays but they just can't profit illegally. Where was this when other companies did the same thing a few years back? Hell, there was even an article on here showcasing Microsoft doing THE EXACT SAME THING back in October, yet I don't remember seeing anywhere near this level of backlash. I admit that at least one major part of why this is so overblown is because content ID matching can't always distinguish what is "legit" and what isn't, but that's not Nintendo's fault. Blame YouTube for that. If anything, all this really does(once YouTube stops being crap and everything gets fully sorted out anyway) is prevent people who are profiting without the licenses from making money. Something that is also against YouTube's user agreement anyway. Those that either do it for fun(such as myself) or those with partnerships that have said licenses(such as Two Best Friends Play on Machinima) will be fine.

Because it got less coverage than what microsoft did? I don't know why? I didn't even know that microsoft did something like this back then. I guess it is chance. Nintendo got unlucky, doesnt change the discussion value of what is going on nor does it justify what nintendo or sega or microsoft or anyone has done.

True, I guess Nintendo did get the bad end of this deal considering others got away with it without nary a whisper. Although after looking into it further, I'm sure part of it is how popular Nintendo Let's Plays are both in terms of views and in terms of how many are done by big name LPers.

You're right though, doesn't change the discussion value. If I'm being honest part of why this bugs me so much is that the legitimate concerns are starting to get mixed in with Nintendo being the go-to punching bag for people lately it seems. There are people out there(not exactly here but throughout the web definitely) pretty much crying foul that Nintendo does this yet bat no eyelashes when game company X does the same thing simply because they like their games more. I've already seen some people say they're going to boycott Nintendo and buy exclusively Microsoft now, which definitely has some irony there.

 

[Rad Party God]

Seriously Nintendo, WTF. This is the dickest move of the worst proportions, I hope it's worth it to compensate the shitty sales of the Wii U. I don't think Sony would do something like this in the PS4, you know, 'cause they even included a "Share" button in the controller itself.

 

[blizzaradragon]

Fair Use doesn't apply here. Fair Use is meant to apply to excerpts, quotes or parts of footage taken from other media, used for educational purposes, but interspersed with content created by the user themselves. The Jimquisition falls under Fair Use, as the snippets of gameplay are interspersed with Jim talking about stuff, and various pretty pictures of things.

Yeah, except that Nintendo hit REVIEWS as well. Not just LPs - ANY video on You Tube that contains Nintendo gameplay, even review with Fair-Use clips like those seen in the Jimquisition, have had their revenue taken.

You are correct that Lets Plays are not covered under Fair Use, but Nintendo has also clearly violated Fair Use by attacking even those YouTube videos that fell under Fair Use.

True, but that's not Nintendo's fault. The fact that reviewers or people with licenses are getting hit is due to YouTube's content ID system being flawed. It can't tell who was a license and who doesn't, so it flags anything that has the content in it regardless of legitimacy. So if anything, while Nintendo isn't exactly the nice guy here a lot of the flak they are getting is due to YouTube's ineptitude.

 

[Nihilm]

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

One of the big things is that professional reviewers have agreements which let them use the licenses and thus allows them to use screenshots/footage for the games they're reviewing. This is also why groups such as Machinima are allowed to do the things they do, as they make sure to get the licenses to use the footage beforehand and thus their partners can do reviews, Let's Plays, etc.(although there might be some bumps in the road while the content ID matches get sorted out)

OT: What I don't understand is why Nintendo doing this is suddenly a big deal. They're being a lot more lax than other companies such as Sega, such that they allow people to still do Let's Plays but they just can't profit illegally. Where was this when other companies did the same thing a few years back? Hell, there was even an article on here showcasing Microsoft doing THE EXACT SAME THING back in October, yet I don't remember seeing anywhere near this level of backlash. I admit that at least one major part of why this is so overblown is because content ID matching can't always distinguish what is "legit" and what isn't, but that's not Nintendo's fault. Blame YouTube for that. If anything, all this really does(once YouTube stops being crap and everything gets fully sorted out anyway) is prevent people who are profiting without the licenses from making money. Something that is also against YouTube's user agreement anyway. Those that either do it for fun(such as myself) or those with partnerships that have said licenses(such as Two Best Friends Play on Machinima) will be fine.

I am getting annoyed by the fact that people think other people are agaisnt this just because it is Nintendo. So they stop listening to reason and just argue with the point of saying anything against Nintendo, when it is not even the point.

Because it got less coverage than what microsoft did? I don't know why? I didn't even know that microsoft did something like this back then. I guess it is chance. Nintendo got unlucky, doesnt change the discussion value of what is going on nor does it justify what nintendo or sega or microsoft or anyone has done.

True, I guess Nintendo did get the bad end of this deal considering others got away with it without nary a whisper. Although after looking into it further, I'm sure part of it is how popular Nintendo Let's Plays are both in terms of views and in terms of how many are done by big name LPers.

You're right though, doesn't change the discussion value. If I'm being honest part of why this bugs me so much is that the legitimate concerns are starting to get mixed in with Nintendo being the go-to punching bag for people lately it seems. There are people out there(not exactly here but throughout the web definitely) pretty much crying foul that Nintendo does this yet bat no eyelashes when game company X does the same thing simply because they like their games more. I've already seen some people say they're going to boycott Nintendo and buy exclusively Microsoft now, which definitely has some irony there.

I am getting annoted at how some of the arguments are being ignored, thinking the only reason i make them is some fantasy that i don't like their games.

 

[Splitzi]

As I'm reading these comments all I can think about is the Two Best Friends Play channel on YouTube, specifically their personal channel where they post a bunch of LP's. Their videos don't sway me into buying or avoiding anything, because I'm not in it for the game, I'm in it for the commentary, stories, and banter. The game is just a backdrop, something to look at while they talk.

I know jeffers likened it to hitting record and playing regularly, but I don't think that is what's happening. Good commentary takes work. Although it is someone else's creation it's not like they're taking credit for it. They are drawing attention to the game, which can be good or bad.

I do have a problem with Nintendo taking all of the ad revenue away from the LPer though. A nominal cut seems like enough to me. When you take away all the profit where is the incentive to upload content? For the love of the game and the fans? Not likely, why would someone pay for recording and capturing equipment for that? Now it's not worth the effort to do it.