Please Understand, Nintendo is the Bad Guy

[kris40k]

Which I don't have a problem with. They are still selling those games and they don't condone use or promotion of ROMs, which, while they do have legit uses, they are also a source of piracy.

Do you have a CD/DVD burner? Even with the decline of physical media, these are still a serious source of piracy.

Yeah, they are. Kind of a side track from the discussion of ROMs and TAS's but...

...if someone rips music tracks, overlays their favorite crappy anime clips (So Transformative! Wow!), and uploads it to Youtube, the music copyright holder can demand it be removed.

Still not seeing a moral problem with what Nintendo is doing here, considering they are going after those Youtubers who are promoting the use of ROMs, which are totally not pirated *wink wink*

Nintendo: Don't post videos promoting the use of ROMs of our property.
Youtuber: You cannot prove that I don't own a copy of...
Nintendo: Don't have to... DMCAJUNKPAAAAUUUUNNNCCCHHH!!!!!!

 

[Jadedvet]

Nintendo was such a part of my childhood I don't think they could ever make me hate them they way I do EA. Yet seeing more actions like this drive home the point that Nintendo is old and out of touch.

They have never played nice with youtubers and the best thing to do about it is just let them go. Nintendo will punish itself with the complete alienation of online personalities who are the first and last stop for many people looking for information about games.

 

[SecondPrize]

Which I don't have a problem with. They are still selling those games and they don't condone use or promotion of ROMs, which, while they do have legit uses, they are also a source of piracy.

Do you have a CD/DVD burner? Even with the decline of physical media, these are still a serious source of piracy.

You really think video game copyrights holders don't have the rights to broadcasts of their games?

I would say there's a difference between the right to broadcast and the right to exclusively control all appearances of your media in all circumstances.

My youtube channel could have... At a guess, 90% of everything taken off it if Nintendo were to take issue with what I do.
I have better things to worry about, but it does make me wonder every time I upload a video...
Is this going to get flagged for something stupid?

When making videos with music, I usually use smaller artists or even ones I've got explicit permission from. One of my favourite videos I've done, however, uses a Weird Al song. I really do worry any time I upload something like that. So I feel your pain.

To be fair, youtube itself is complicit in this.

Not complicit, so much. They're the primary driver. Much of what you describe later is not based on copyright law but upon YouTube policies made because there are entire industries with money and YouTubers who mostly don't have it. They opted for this model not because of laws, but because of expediency, both political and fiscal. The reason? We can't afford to fight back.

Well, some of us can. I do YouTube as a hobby and any legal battle I would have to go through for my content would take away from the jobs I hold down to not die and stuff. Even people doing it for money don't have the resources to fight while they're being undercut by the exact people they're fighting.

they clearly don't. the moment you interact with the title, any video of it becomes a "transformative work".

The internet likes to claim that, but it's never been successfully legally argued that simply playing a game is sufficiently transformative. Transformative works have criteria, and being transformative is only one criteria of fair use.

I mean, you could argue it should be, but should be doesn't equal "is," or "they clearly don't." You have to make a better case than "it's transformative" for that to be the case.

We're not talking about all circumstances. We're talking about broadcasting a video on youtube.

 

[Something Amyss]

Still not seeing a moral problem with what Nintendo is doing here

I didn't address Nintendfo. I addressed the argument you made. The one that sounds suspiciously like one that was thrown out by courts in the Beta days of home video. One that's been repeatedly thrown out or CD and DVD burners would be illegal. One that has been thrown out with digital distribution methods, or I'd be a criminal for using torrent services even though I use them for legit purposes (like when a bundle service asks us to use them for our purchases to save them on server costs that could instead go to charity).

The argument is bad regardless of whether Nintendo is in the right or wrong here.

We're not talking about all circumstances. We're talking about broadcasting a video on youtube.

Which still changes the original issue. Can you address it now?

 

[kris40k]

I didn't address Nintendfo. I addressed the argument you made. The one that sounds suspiciously like one that was thrown out by courts in the Beta days of home video. One that's been repeatedly thrown out or CD and DVD burners would be illegal. One that has been thrown out with digital distribution methods, or I'd be a criminal for using torrent services even though I use them for legit purposes (like when a bundle service asks us to use them for our purchases to save them on server costs that could instead go to charity).

The argument is bad regardless of whether Nintendo is in the right or wrong here.

I guess its a good thing I never said ROMs should be illegal or only used for piracy or are whatever you are suspicious over, huh?

 

[ExileNZ]

Please Understand, Nintendo is the Bad Guy

About two weeks ago, Nintendo issued copyright infringement claims against 80% of a speedrunner's videos. This makes them the bad guys. Here's why.

Read Full Article

Jim made a similar point back in February, although he was primarily talking about ad revenue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_vGe68T6sM

 

[Uhuru N'Uru]

You really think video game copyrights holders don't have the rights to broadcasts of their games?

No they don't, they only hold the rights to the game itself and any videos they themselves make.
Which is one of the main reasons only Nintendo do this sort of dumb move and abuse the ContentID system on YouTube.

A system designed for music videoes and movies, it's not very good with them and fails completely with computer games.
It's a terrible system and Google should scrap it and operate the same DMCA takedown system that they use on the search engine.
That's all they are legally required to do, this failure of a system is used more for silencing critics, than any real copyright issues with any games.

While I still don't put Nintendo in the 'EA' camp, I still agree this is a policy of theirs that just baffles me. I can't understand why no one with any power at Nintendo doesn't figure out why people film and watch these videos and study how it benefits their exposure.

It's a shitty thing but legal departments are ruthless when they want to justify their existence and can convince good companies to be invested in really dumb and anti-consumer friendly ideals that damage the company long term but benefit that department in the short term.

Why would you even think they belong in a group with game publishers at all.
They are a Console Manufacturer and belong firmly with Sony Playstaton and Ms's XBox divisions in that camp.
Even more so than the Somy and Microsoft, who have none game console products. All Nintendo do is Game Consoles and make 1st party content only for those consoles.

I know they are planning to dip there toe in mobile gaming, but they will be ports of their existing console and likely just from their hand held console games.

 

[Atmos Duality]

TAS are still promoting the use of ROMs and ROM hacks. Why should they look favourable on ROMs when it very nearly killed one of their handhelds in the past? They have any right to crack down on that.

"Nearly killed"?
*snickers*
No. Not even remotely true.
None of Nintendo's handhelds to date, not even the DS and its horrible R4 problems, came even close to cratering.

Every one of them has dominated the handheld console arena; the DS and GBA pulled Nintendo's arse out of the fire during their leaner late-N64 and Gamecube years. So stop pretending there was anything really at stake here.

 

[maururun]

ROMs and ROM hacks are in most cases illegal. TAS promotes both ROM usage and ROM hacks. Why do people act like emulation is not illegal? Because it very much is in most of the western world. It doesn't serve to promote Nintendo in any way, since it doesn't really promote those old games, but merely promotes getting ROMs of those games and hacking them for TAS. That youtube video maker is not "innocent", people really want to take his side, but in reality, ROM hacks exist in an uncomfortable grey zone. And if you build your youtube channel on a not 100% legal activity, you have to expect that something might happen to it. To me, protecting this youtuber is not different from those people selling custom DS cartiges that allowed you to play SD cards with DS roms on them on your NDS. The cartige itself wasn't illegal either, but it wasn't used for anything but illegal activities by its buyers.

You are attempting to soften your stance, but you're still mistaken on a number of points.

1) In the US, possessing a ROM is not illegal if you dumped it from a game you own. There is no way to know whether the ROM used in a particular YouTube video comes from a legal or illegal source, so the fact that a ROM is involved isn't adequate justification for the video to be deemed to be complicit with illegal activity.

2) ROM hacks are not necessarily illegal. A hack that distributes copyrighted code or imagery can be copyright violation, but it can also be fair use, especially since most hacks are distributed separately from the game or game ROM itself, distributed freely (not for profit) and are transformative works. They also typically don't harm the market value of the original. Further, ROM hacks that only modify or rearrange existing game elements or contribute only original new elements (as opposed to copyrighted elements from other games) are clearly in legal territory in the US.

3) Emulators are legal in the US unless they specifically violate DRM methods or carry copyrighted code.

4) In light of the above, TASing does not endorse illegal activity. In fact, TASing is a great example of what seems to me to be pretty easily fair use. It doesn't encourage distribution of copyrighted material in a commercial context, it is distinctly transformative, and it doesn't appear to hurt the market for the original works. Further, most folks interested in TASing simply want to watch the videos.

In light of this, Nintendo is abusing the DMCA for what strikes me as a clear fair use exception to US copyright law. If the TAS video poster in question is in a nation other than the US, we must defer to the relevant local copyright law, but if the video's creator is in the US, we must look to US copyright provisions. And those provisions include exceptions for Fair Use, something that US courts recently confirmed (for, like, the hundredth time) in the context of the DMCA. If that ruling is allowed to stand, Nintendo could be liable for abusing the DMCA.

Basically, there is no evidence in most, if not all, TAS videos on YouTube that illegal activity is occurring or has occurred in the creation of the video, and most copyright issues can be easily waived in the face of a strong fair use case. IANAL, but I am a librarian, and librarians have to not only know copyright well, but also champion fair use.

So yes, in this case, Nintendo is a dick.

 

[NiceJobBreakingItHero]

You really think video game copyrights holders don't have the rights to broadcasts of their games?

No they don't, they only hold the rights to the game itself and any videos they themselves make.
Which is one of the main reasons only Nintendo do this sort of dumb move and abuse the ContentID system on YouTube.

You read that a lot in this kind of discussions but this is simply not true. They have copyright on art assets, music, code, voice acting, script ...
So while the hack may not simply be the game it still uses art assets and soundtrack and Nintendo can easily claim copyright for those and demand to take them down.

 

[mtarzaim02]

Nintendo is clearly being the dick here, and should take a more soft approach to the problem, if problem there is.
That being said, the examples offered in this article are bollocks.

Here is some more realistic instances of youtubers-like productions:

- I take every pages of Harry Potter, turn them in paper planes, then RE-ENACT all the lines in the books, with dialogs and expositions, all with my sole personal voice talent, and get money from merchandising. Do you think Rowling won't have a thing to say about it?

- I take a marvel comic book serie, let's say spiderman. I draw above the existing cases my own characters and make them interact with the original story. Then, I SELL them under the name "Emo Spiderman & Snarky the Dog". Do you think Marvel won't have a thing to say about it?

- I take famous paintings from an artist (still alive because the dead ones are a lot more complicated instance), I cobble them together in a (somewhat) artistic fashion, and I show them in a gallery with PAID ENTRY. Do you think the original artist won't have a thing to say about it?

What youtubers (or at least speedrunners) do is this: using the original medium to tell the whole story and making money from this. Not even in a "critique" perspective. Not even in an artistic/hommage perspective. Like a streaming in forward 4x.

For most people, fun in playing comes from the discovery of what the game has to offer. If I've already seen the content, what's the point? It's a potential lost sale for the creator, and no money racking in his pockets to compensate.

Maybe there would be less issues, if speedrunners didn't get money from ads. But since there's cash involved, of course the copyrighter will have a thing to say about it. And while it IS a dick move, on a mercantile standpoint, it REMAINS justified in most of cases (flagging reviews or let's play of racers or sports games like they did for Joe's mario Kart 8 is NOT among those).

 

[Vigormortis]

I'm not saying Nintendo isn't being a massive dick here. It doesn't excuse them. Still doesn't stop me from saying you're wrong here. Nintendo is NOT worse than EA and Activision. I mean, seriously. How many people has EA put out of work after buying their studios just to get the IP rights? Your analogy is way off. This isn't like a serial killer compared to a wife murderer. This is a serial killer compared to someone that's pushing a kid's face into a birthday cake or pantsing them in front of their crush. Still a massive dick move, but is in NO WAY a fitting comparison.

Except, it is.

I invite you to look into the long and storied history of Nintendo's shaking and, at times, disgusting relationship with 3rd party (and even some 2nd party) devs. The way they treated devs back in the NES and SNES days, and to some degree even today, was especially appalling. They had a virtual monopoly on the console market, and they were NOT above abusing that position. Much of their business practices today still reflect that mentality.

So, from a consumer and industry point of view, Nintendo is damn near as bad as EA and Activision.

Besides, at least EA and others aren't pulling the bullshit that is Amiibos on their consumer bases...

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I still don't get in the slightest why they would want to take down or otherwise punish Let's Players etc. for giving them FREE PUBLICITY. They've bought your product, many aren't even making money off it, and they're giving you free advertising on how much fun it is to play with friends or solo, and you shit on them?? Just goes beyond me.

Then again, the whole concept of branding is still foreign to me, even in this modern day. I still don't understand how people could wear a shirt with a massive logo covering the whole thing, and actually pay to wear it...shouldn't it be the other way round?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I'll be on your side Nintendo, when you release Super Mario World + All Stars on the 3DS either through remaster or virtual console.

 

[SecondPrize]

Still not seeing a moral problem with what Nintendo is doing here

I didn't address Nintendfo. I addressed the argument you made. The one that sounds suspiciously like one that was thrown out by courts in the Beta days of home video. One that's been repeatedly thrown out or CD and DVD burners would be illegal. One that has been thrown out with digital distribution methods, or I'd be a criminal for using torrent services even though I use them for legit purposes (like when a bundle service asks us to use them for our purchases to save them on server costs that could instead go to charity).

The argument is bad regardless of whether Nintendo is in the right or wrong here.

We're not talking about all circumstances. We're talking about broadcasting a video on youtube.

Which still changes the original issue. Can you address it now?

You mean the issue of Nintendo taking issue with a broadcasting a video of their stuff on youtube? I just did.

 

[SecondPrize]

You really think video game copyrights holders don't have the rights to broadcasts of their games?

No they don't, they only hold the rights to the game itself and any videos they themselves make.
Which is one of the main reasons only Nintendo do this sort of dumb move and abuse the ContentID system on YouTube.

A system designed for music videoes and movies, it's not very good with them and fails completely with computer games.
It's a terrible system and Google should scrap it and operate the same DMCA takedown system that they use on the search engine.
That's all they are legally required to do, this failure of a system is used more for silencing critics, than any real copyright issues with any games.

While I still don't put Nintendo in the 'EA' camp, I still agree this is a policy of theirs that just baffles me. I can't understand why no one with any power at Nintendo doesn't figure out why people film and watch these videos and study how it benefits their exposure.

It's a shitty thing but legal departments are ruthless when they want to justify their existence and can convince good companies to be invested in really dumb and anti-consumer friendly ideals that damage the company long term but benefit that department in the short term.

Why would you even think they belong in a group with game publishers at all.
They are a Console Manufacturer and belong firmly with Sony Playstaton and Ms's XBox divisions in that camp.
Even more so than the Somy and Microsoft, who have none game console products. All Nintendo do is Game Consoles and make 1st party content only for those consoles.

I know they are planning to dip there toe in mobile gaming, but they will be ports of their existing console and likely just from their hand held console games.

What exactly do you think is involved in their rights to the game itself?

 

[Lightknight]

Don't you kind of have to issue copyright claims if you want to continue to protect your IP? It's a fairly standard business practice, especially when speedruns do typically portray the whole game. It's little different from a Movie company issuing a copyright infringement if someone posts their entire movie.

Are they still the bad guy? Sure. But not for this specifically.

Nintendo ... generally dont have games with plots, themes or characters that are actually worth a damn. Others are their strengths, and if it was WItcher or Metro or something you were arguing about, I might lend you SOME credit. But it aint. It is Nintendo.

I fail to see why the quality of the plot is particularly relevant to the potential loss of IP control. Nintendo just has a team of dick attorneys who are technically doing the right thing if you want to protect the IP.

You may not think the plot is all that good, but your subjective evaluation of the plot is entirely beside the point.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I still don't get in the slightest why they would want to take down or otherwise punish Let's Players etc. for giving them FREE PUBLICITY. They've bought your product, many aren't even making money off it, and they're giving you free advertising on how much fun it is to play with friends or solo, and you shit on them?? Just goes beyond me.

Then again, the whole concept of branding is still foreign to me, even in this modern day. I still don't understand how people could wear a shirt with a massive logo covering the whole thing, and actually pay to wear it...shouldn't it be the other way round?

Because it isn't; the channel in question was using a tool-assisted ROM-Hack, which means it is not representative of the actual product. Nor is it proof he bought it. And that's before we get into how there is still no evidence of Youtube LP's/speed runs translating in any way to "free advertising."

 

[Uhuru N'Uru]

You really think video game copyrights holders don't have the rights to broadcasts of their games?

No they don't, they only hold the rights to the game itself and any videos they themselves make.
?
Snipped
?

What exactly do you think is involved in their rights to the game itself?

That's quite simple, it's the game code that is copyrighted, not the 3rd party images of someone playing the game.
If I have a copy of the game code, I can play the game without paying them for that.
If I have a video of the game being played, whoever made the video owns the copyright to that video.
Not the games copyright holders, I can't play the game, just because, I possess the video of someone else playing it.
Even if it's a Let's Play of the entire game, it makes no difference.
Watching that Let's Play, is not the same as playing the game.

It's perfectly clear, if the lawers of the major game publishers, thought they had any chance of winning a court case over this matter, that court case would have occurred many years ago.
Not one single court case has occurred, anywhere in, the world because they can't win it.
Instead most publishers have come to see the benefit, of the publicity Let's Plays provide and now even pay for them to occur.