What did everyone think of the latest Jimquisition?

[Story]

I do have to pick at one thing from the OP:

It's okay to steal because a company does not respect you?

No its not. But equally that is absolutely not what Nintendo is doing. Its got absolutely nothing to do with mere respect and absolutely everything to do with Nintendo quite literally stealing a cut of his work. Jim's job involves producing these videos, writing articles, etc. It is how he makes his income. Some of those videos he does not monetise because he views the income from patreon as covering it. That is up to him. Regardless of whether those videos are monetised or not, however, Nintendo has absolutely no rights whatsoever to them and Jim's use of clips in those videos are covered under fair use laws.

TL;DR: Its got absolutely nothing to do with 'respect' and absolutely everything to do with theft of his work by ignoring fair use practices. Jim is pointing out the hypocrisy of them flagrantly stealing other people's work whilst getting angry about others stealing theirs.

On the contrary I'd say it has a lot to do with respect since Jim himself kept bringing that up as one of his points. In fact its at the pivotal moment when we know for sure he isn't being completely tongue-in-cheek that he is advocating for piracy of Nintendo's games. The very last part of the video (13:36) he saids "I simply do not respect Nintendo enough to non-sarcastically get the point across, that I do not condone that sort of thing (piracy)...because I don't respect them. They don't respect my rights I don't see why I should respect their rights...ever."

So yeah, I'd like to know were I misinterpreted him somehow because I have a lot of respect for Jim but not if he is going to be this petty.

And also, and I can't stress this enough: Jim and other content creators are being abused by Nintendo protections of their IPs but Jim's general audience is not. He is justifying everyone who listens to pirate all of Nintendo's games not just him or those directly effected like him or just games that are out of print or whatever.

I also want to make it clear that this isn't about Nintendo this type of logic can be applied to every single company, every law, every single person ect. And in my opinion at least its destructive.

 

[Story]

He might hope for an official response from Nintendo by making this as ... clear as possible.
That's what I would think. Usually he does not condone piracy, right?

Usually not. He made a video on piracy that got quite a few people banned on The Escapist back in the day that I thought was pretty enlightening. Basically he justified piracy for games that are out of print, not available in your region, or that you can't get by any other means. I would actually recommend watching that video I thought it was one of his best.

 

[Dornedas]

But its their product, you can argue and complain all you want but they are in the right, end of story.

Right.
That's why 90% of digital artwork belongs to adobe. It's their content.

Hey, last time I check everything written from my phone is property of Apple Inc.

But what if I use my iphone to to post a Mario Let's play on facebook?

Whose property is the video?

 

[Lightspeaker]

On the contrary I'd say it has a lot to do with respect since Jim himself kept bringing that up as one of his points. In fact its at the pivotal moment when we know for sure he isn't being completely tongue-in-cheek that he is advocating for piracy of Nintendo's games. The very last part of the video (13:36) he saids "I simply do not respect Nintendo enough to non-sarcastically get the point across, that I do not condone that sort of thing (piracy)...because I don't respect them. They don't respect my rights I don't see why I should respect their rights...ever."

So yeah, I'd like to know were I misinterpreted him somehow because I have a lot of respect for Jim but not if he is going to be this petty.

You misinterpreted because you're failing to grasp the point being made in relation to copyright law. Its a "can't see the woods for the trees" issue because you're obsessed with the use of the word respect without actually understanding what he was saying there in the context of the video.

Respect for RIGHTS is nothing to do with respect for the individual. Respect for someone's legal rights pertains to actually following the law and a person's rights under that law. Not respecting the person. There are people I don't have a lot of respect for but I have respect for their legal rights; the two are entirely different things. The entire video is directed at the legal rights of Nintendo and Content Creators under copyright law; therefore the respect being discussed has little to do with Jim's clear distaste for Nintendo's policies and everything to do with the fact that Nintendo's policies actively violate everyone else's rights under copyright law.

Jim respecting Nintendo and Nintendo respecting Jim as entities has absolutely nothing at all to do with either of them respecting the other's rights under the law, in this case copyright law, and one which Nintendo has already violated. You can dislike someone and still respect their legal rights. Its a legal matter, not one of personal taste.

And also, and I can't stress this enough: Jim and other content creators are being abused by Nintendo protections of their IPs but Jim's general audience is not. He is justifying everyone who listens to pirate all of Nintendo's games not just him or those directly effected like him or just games that are out of print or whatever.

I also want to make it clear that this isn't about Nintendo this type of logic can be applied to every single company, every law, every single person ect. And in my opinion at least its destructive.

So?

Really. So what? Who cares? He is stating that Nintendo systematically disregards copyright law unless it benefits them. And is therefore stating that it is therefore morally correct for everyone else to systematically disregard copyright law as it pertains to Nintendo. There is no inconsistency here. I find it asinine to claim that only some people are effected by these policies of Nintendo considering that technically those policies cover EVERYONE; so if you wanted to go make a video reviewing a Nintendo game right now then you would be effected too, not just existing creators. It also effects the audience and everyone downstream of the content creator, just indirectly.

Its a blanket policy that effects everyone and influences people not already directly effected by it. You don't have to be directly harmed by a policy to be effected by it and the consequences of it.

 

[hermes]

I don't understand about this whole Anti Youtube stance with Nintendo, I mean if all the Youtubers don't like Nintendo because of the whole Youtube policy, why the fuck am I still seeing Nintendo videos from different Youtubers.

1- Because youtube is big enough that even companies like Nintendo can't stay on top of all the uploads. A period of a couple days is what I would give them, depending on how interested they are.
2- Because Nintendo has an "official" way to allow youtubers to publish videos with Nintendo's blessings (https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/guide/). If you sign up for it, agree that your video is their copyright, agree that you will only show Nintendo approved content, give them veto powers and control of the proceedings to them, they promise not to unleash the copyright dogs to you and share the revenue you generate (but they administer), after they took their cut (70%). As I said before, classical mob racketeering tactics.

But its their product, you can argue and complain all you want but they are in the right, end of story.

And I still think LPs are no different from listening to whole albums of Music in Youtube or watching while movie. And I find the whole "Games are interactive" thing to be weak.

I am not complaining. If you read my previous post, you will notice I think Jim is being extra petty about the whole situation.

And while this is their product, the fact they historically always go to extra lengths to "protect" it makes it look out of touch half the times, and anti-consumer the other half. After all, they are the same that:

- During the 80s and 90s lobbied to have rented games outlawed.
- During the 90s, instead of presenting a united front, they distance themselves from every other game company during the "violence on videogames" court hearings.
- During the early 90s, Nintendo was involved in several complains of anti-monopoly laws.
- Even today, Nintendo has a strong stand against used games sales and any kind of game sales in general, even online or the bargain bin kind for old games, because any reduction in price "reduces the value of their property"

Which takes me to my second point. No matter their messaging, Nintendo is not your friend, it is not your pal, and it is not your cool uncle. Nintendo is an old school zaibatsu style Japanese company, with all the warts that involves.

This whole thing does make me question Nintendo's financial situation though.

Because if EA outright tolerates this or other companies, why not Nintendo.

I assume is because they can't afford all these things because are no where near is large as EA.

This has nothing to do with financial situation, and everything to do with philosophical situation. Nintendo is an old guard Japanese company, and while a lot of young people are familiar with the post-Internet world, most of the decisions are made by old men that barely understand the current world. While most young companies "tolerate" youtube content because the exposure gives them free advertisement; old companies only see them as people that are stealing from them by showing the world something which the rest of the world did not paid.

That is why one console manufacturer took 3 generations to figure out a way to associate your online purchases to your account, instead of to the hardware, despite having mandatory user registration in two of them; while the others have a dedicated "share" button in the controller.

 

[hermes]

But its their product, you can argue and complain all you want but they are in the right, end of story.

Right.
That's why 90% of digital artwork belongs to adobe. It's their content.

Hey, last time I check everything written from my phone is property of Apple Inc.

I actually can't tell if this is a joke or not without looking it up like some messed up version of poe's law.
We're fucked.

And that is why they won.
Note: I think its yours, unless it is being upload to their cloud. If it is in their server, it is theirs.

 

[Silvver]

Just being a devils advocate..if he made a one off broadcast using a random company's IP that would make sense. But if he bases his career on repeatedly using another company's product samples to add to his videos, then really he is using that companies property to polish off his own product and gain interest/money.

Short version, he is not a random Joe Public making a fan video. This is his job and he is making money using their IP. No?

 

[Story]

I appreciate the detailed response here's my rebuttal.

On the contrary I'd say it has a lot to do with respect since Jim himself kept bringing that up as one of his points. In fact its at the pivotal moment when we know for sure he isn't being completely tongue-in-cheek that he is advocating for piracy of Nintendo's games. The very last part of the video (13:36) he saids "I simply do not respect Nintendo enough to non-sarcastically get the point across, that I do not condone that sort of thing (piracy)...because I don't respect them. They don't respect my rights I don't see why I should respect their rights...ever."

So yeah, I'd like to know were I misinterpreted him somehow because I have a lot of respect for Jim but not if he is going to be this petty.

You misinterpreted because you're failing to grasp the point being made in relation to copyright law. Its a "can't see the woods for the trees" issue because you're obsessed with the use of the word respect without actually understanding what he was saying there in the context of the video.

Respect for RIGHTS is nothing to do with respect for the individual. Respect for someone's legal rights pertains to actually following the law and a person's rights under that law. Not respecting the person. There are people I don't have a lot of respect for but I have respect for their legal rights; the two are entirely different things. The entire video is directed at the legal rights of Nintendo and Content Creators under copyright law; therefore the respect being discussed has little to do with Jim's clear distaste for Nintendo's policies and everything to do with the fact that Nintendo's policies actively violate everyone else's rights under copyright law.

Jim respecting Nintendo and Nintendo respecting Jim as entities has absolutely nothing at all to do with either of them respecting the other's rights under the law, in this case copyright law, and one which Nintendo has already violated. You can dislike someone and still respect their legal rights. Its a legal matter, not one of personal taste.

No I didn't miss the point, I actually mentioned his main point on copyright law and how he feels violated by it in the OP, in the very first sentence actually. I just brought up one of his reasonings that I found troubling in his own words and the one that you quoted. My point is that Jim justifies the violation of respect (law or otherwise) with more violation which is the incorrect response. You are not suddenly above the law or morally in the right because someone else thought they were. The "they did it first" excuse doesn't fly.
And also I don't believe respect for the individual and respect for the law are mutually exclusive all the time. They can be, but they aren't in this case. Jim's own title and what he said in the video is a testament to this: "It is morally okay to pirate all of Nintendo's games." Does he mean it is morally okay from the personal end? Legal end? How about both. I personally don't think its okay on either side.

And also, and I can't stress this enough: Jim and other content creators are being abused by Nintendo protections of their IPs but Jim's general audience is not. He is justifying everyone who listens to pirate all of Nintendo's games not just him or those directly effected like him or just games that are out of print or whatever.

I also want to make it clear that this isn't about Nintendo this type of logic can be applied to every single company, every law, every single person ect. And in my opinion at least its destructive.

So?

Really. So what? Who cares? He is stating that Nintendo systematically disregards copyright law unless it benefits them. And is therefore stating that it is therefore morally correct for everyone else to systematically disregard copyright law as it pertains to Nintendo. There is no inconsistency here. I find it asinine to claim that only some people are effected by these policies of Nintendo considering that technically those policies cover EVERYONE; so if you wanted to go make a video reviewing a Nintendo game right now then you would be effected too, not just existing creators. It also effects the audience and everyone downstream of the content creator, just indirectly.

Its a blanket policy that effects everyone and influences people not already directly effected by it. You don't have to be directly harmed by a policy to be effected by it and the consequences of it.

You misunderstand me. The problem I have with Jim's video is his suggested solution not Nintendo's troubling policies. Policies I disagree with and which he has brought up before in a much more mature way. I care because his type of reasoning is why some people steal, pirate, and otherwise brake someone else's rights. They feel morally justified in doing so because of some perceived or real wrong doing on the part of the other party. If Jim really is saying that all people, not just him, are in the right to steal from Nintendo because they are all effected by Nintendo's disregard towards fair use well, I also find that very troubling. It's counteracting stealing with stealing.
You posed a scenario where set up a YouTube channel and had revenue stolen from Nintendo. Well, how about a more indirect and likely happenstance; I never make a Youtube channel but follow someone else who does and their video gets taken down or I have to watch a Nintendo commercial that is 3 minutes long. Am I now justified to steal one of their games for "stealing my time or the potential revenue of someone I find entertaining?

 

[McElroy]

It's kind of sad really if you consider the writers, artists, everyone who placed their heart and soul into the makings of a game for a company that's grieving everyone. Nintendo (both the Japanese and American studios) are going out of their way to screw people over and for the most part, we want revenge. However I always keep in mind we'd also be hurting their employees and those who're the sole reason games like Legend of Zelda, Mario, ect. are so incredible if not memorable. It pains me greatly, but if we're to strike at Nintendo we're taking down everyone on the ship as well.

But if the reputations of the other employees are spotless, why would they have trouble finding new jobs should Nintendo take a dip?

It might not be difficult for them to find new jobs, but then begs the question- would they enjoy it?
After working on a series for years and years, only to find yourself working on a project that isn't like anything you've done before can be off putting (or exciting, it depends on the individual). It would be like everything you knew about what makes a Mario game, but now this gaming company you got hired for, wants you to work on a survivor horror game or something out of your line of experience.

I'm sure they'll manage regardless, but the thought of never getting to work on what you devoted your life to in the previous studio still sucks in all honesty.

Yeah, I guess. That's just a weird appeal to emotion, in my opinion. Distracts from the issue that's being discussed. And I mean generally "but think about all the jobs" is used here and there every now and then, but now it's more like "but they have such a good gig at Nintendo". I get the sentiment that it's a shame if good art doesn't get produced because of good old executive meddling, but what really would be a shame if you needed big corporation backing for every piece you might do.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Fair point but here is the difference:
Jim seemed to me to be encouraging (but not really, but yes really) his audience to pirate wether or not they are fan game creators or YouTube contributors. If he just said himself or the effected parties in this instance that arguement might stand a little better but even you yourself said it was flimsy.

Whether it counts for them depends what kind of contract Jim is talking about. I never called it flimsy either, just complicated.

 

[Cold Shiny]

I agree with everything he said, but I think that video's title is overly aggressive and click baity.

 

[Story]

I think I know what's bothering me about the video.

Can someone actually show me at what point Jim said do not pirate from Nintendo without him taking it back? I don't think there is a point where he does.

Fair point but here is the difference:
Jim seemed to me to be encouraging (but not really, but yes really) his audience to pirate wether or not they are fan game creators or YouTube contributors. If he just said himself or the effected parties in this instance that arguement might stand a little better but even you yourself said it was flimsy.

Whether it counts for them depends what kind of contract Jim is talking about. I never called it flimsy either, just complicated.

Fair enough it is pretty complicated...I'm not even sure if Jim is even referring to an exact contract and as you said if that theory really applies here. Say that it does; is someone have to be contractually obligated for there to be a violation of rights? Lightspeaker mentioned the separation of legal respect and moral respect and also that Nintendo's ID laws effect everyone even if its not direct. Are they a breach of contract in this case? Guess it depends on the contract like you said.

Eh, you don't really need to answer any of these points; they really won't solve the problem I have with this video: In that its saying that it is okay to violate someone else rights because they violated yours. You might disagree but saying "breach of contract" or "because they are hypocrites" seems like a flimsy excuse to wrong the other party to me.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

According to his patreon, he's making 11k a month to talk about videogames. As someone who doesn't watch any gaming youtubers, do you really need to talk about nintendo? Dumb question, I know. For all I know half of his videos are about nintendo games. I have no idea.

 

[Story]

According to his patreon, he's making 11k a month to talk about videogames. As someone who doesn't watch any gaming youtubers, do you really need to talk about nintendo? Dumb question, I know. For all I know half of his videos are about nintendo games. I have no idea.

I mean, I suppose with the fair use act such things shouldn't matter. He and other Youtubers should be able to use Nintendo's media as part of a trans formative work regardless of how often or not you do it. Jim is arguing that it is a matter of principle.

 

[marioandsonic]

I get what Jim's saying, and I don't disagree that this is another item to add on to the looooong list of stupid shit Nintendo has done in recent years. That said, going after Nintendo for abusing Youtube's copyright system seems to me like attacking the symptom rather than the cause. Because it's not like Nintendo is the only company to do this. Jim himself has dealt with indie devs issuing copyright strikes against his videos, and Digital Homicide is even trying to now sue him.

What really needs to be done is changes to Youtube's copyright policy, and even changes to copyright law itself. That last part may be more difficult, as from what I understand, copyright law in Japan is enforced differently than in the US. Nonetheless, it's something that needs to be done. As the world becomes more and more digitally connected, there needs to be a more globalized way to allow fair use.

 

[Story]

I get what Jim's saying, and I don't disagree that this is another item to add on to the looooong list of stupid shit Nintendo has done in recent years. That said, going after Nintendo for abusing Youtube's copyright system seems to me like attacking the symptom rather than the cause. Because it's not like Nintendo is the only company to do this. Jim himself has dealt with indie devs issuing copyright strikes against his videos, and Digital Homicide is even trying to now sue him.

What really needs to be done is changes to Youtube's copyright policy, and even changes to copyright law itself. That last part may be more difficult, as from what I understand, copyright law in Japan is enforced differently than in the US. Nonetheless, it's something that needs to be done. As the world becomes more and more digitally connected, there needs to be a more globalized way to allow fair use.

I agree wholeheartedly with this but I should mention that in the video Jim said he was particularly angry with Nintendo because they go out of their way to reject videos with their content in them. Its a little complicated but basically most big companies wait it out instead of responding yes or no to an appeal and the flagging expires usually returning the rights to the content creator. Nintendo outright rejects them or saids "no" so there is no way to get the video back or avoid ads on the video.

 

[Callate]

That whole "corporate personhood" thing- the sense of a corporation as a single entity, rather than the laws that treat one as such- muddies things a bit.

I understand Jim's frustration. The responses of Nintendo as a corporation towards those who use their footage, characters, music, etc.- even for uses it is fair to claim fall under "Fair Use" laws- are a legitimate cause of anger. Even if one isn't necessarily using the derivative work as a source of revenue, directly or indirectly.

And I think there is an argument to be made that applying intellectual property laws in such a draconian manner can alienate fans, and causes more harm than good.

But-

There is the Nintendo that's made of accountants, lawyers, and MBAS, and then there's the Nintendo that's made of artists, musicians, and programmers.

You can plead and petition for the former to change their ways. You can argue that their tactics are penny-wise and pound-foolish. You can suggest that their energies would be better spent in adapting to the idiosyncrasies of the new market rather than trying to force it to conform to the ways of older versions- and point out how badly the music industry has suffered in taking a similar tack to its own.

But you can't steal bread from the mouth of the Nintendo that makes lawsuits and digital takedown claims without stealing it from the Nintendo that makes Mario, Pikmin and Kirby.

I recognize that JS isn't really trying to suggest that people should pirate and steal from Nintendo. But I also recognize that there are some people who will, in their stupidity or willful ignorance, not see it as such.

And as is my personal philosophy, I won't deny that Sterling has every right to say what he did; I just wish he had found a slightly better way to do so. I think it probably would have possible to do so in a way that would have conveyed the same message, been funnier, less angry, and not have made certain bright bulbs feel they should steal from Nintendo.

 

[Story]

I want to say this was very good answer and cleared it up quite a few problems I have on my end, so thanks. But I wonder if you are willing to do me favor?

I recognize that JS isn't really trying to suggest that people should pirate and steal from Nintendo. But I also recognize that there are some people who will, in their stupidity or willful ignorance, not see it as such.

I don't want to be willfully ignorant. So tell me at what point does Jim not say to steal from Nintendo that wasn't half-sincere?

 

[jademunky]

I'd give it a 5/10

Nintendo is just awful in it's litigiousness and clamping down on the youtube community but Jim was really hamfisted with the comparison between copyright takedown and illegal ROMs. Like he had two puzzle pieces that almost but not quite fit together.

 

[CaitSeith]

I'm not going to defend him on that. As much of a dickhead Nintendo has been, I don't agree on using piracy as a mean of revenge. In the worst case, I prefer not to buy, period.

OT: It seems Jim can't even sound humorous about this matter. Nintendo is not only poking the bear with a stick, it's whacking the cubs with a baseball bat in front of the mother bear. I mean there's a breaking point when even intelligent, witty thinkers like Jim will say 'f it all' and give them the death stare. It's gotten to the point freaken Angry Joe might in fact bring Nintendo to court if they try to shut down his future reviews for any upcoming Nintendo games because they're violating Fair Use laws.

I want to like Nintendo, I want to say they're the good guys. Not anymore, not after what they did to Youtube LP'ers and their trigger-happy copyright claiming spree despite people were doing em a favor by spreading good word about their games.

Nintendo has shut down none of AJ's videos. They were marked with content ID, and kept the ad revenue for them. AJ preferred to give a big FU and remove the video than to let them have any more money.