YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

[rcs619]

Polaris just needs to make this a standard rule for all of their contributors. You get TB, Angry Joe, Pewdiepie, Markiplier, Game Grumps and all the rest to just stop uploading Nintendo content, maybe some sort of message will be sent. Because, let's be real, that is who this system is for. Nintendo is banking on the assumption that the really big youtube names make enough money to where they can just take a hit on Nintendo content and move on. They don't give a shit about nickel and diming Mom and Pop youtuber with their fifty subscribers. They want a cut of the big time.

It's just crazy though. You buy their product, you by all of the accessories, and short of pirating their product, a huge, multinational corporation should have *zero* right to come into your home, or your work, and tell you how you get to use the thing you bought. Buying a game isn't some lingering contract where you only get to enjoy it in ways *they* approve of. As long as nothing illegal is being done (and there is a strong legal argument for Let's Plays being protected under Fair Use), what Nintendo thinks of it should mean shit-all.

I wonder how long it'll take before they try and take down the GamesDoneQuick youtube channel. Let them deal with the media fallout of trying to shutdown a group that's raised millions for charity and is almost universally popular.

 

[Luthor55555]

what I didn't know was about the white list of games that they allow you to cover even after the 40% cut they take. There are some really conspicuous titles left out of the list, like every smash bros game and the pokemon games. Almost no 64 games are on the list either.

And do they allow for speed runs? They could get some srsly bad press if they started blocking videos for things like awesome games done quick which always has a huge number of nintendo games in their line up.

But hey, at least they have Link's Crossbow Adventure...

 

[gigastar]

This really made it to the news? Getting a copyright strike was his own damn fault, he starts sobbing after not following the rules that he knew that was in effect. Either that or I underestimate Joe's PR.

Wasnt a copyright strike, its content ID. One is progress to getting your channel deleted, the other is a 3rd party claiming ad revenue off that video.

The only reason hes making a big deal out of this is to raise awareness of Nintendos flagrant disregard for fair use, and how YT's content ID system can essentially destroy someone who makes a living from YT ad revenue.

 

[Ishigami]

Joe thinking way too highly of himself.

Furthermore, he never reviewed any Nintendo games. Period.

Because he was well aware of the situation and tested out the waters with low effort content.
Would you like to go work for a 40 to 60 hour week only that by the end some random dude walks up to you and say: "Nice man and now I take 40% of what you earned, bye."
No you fucking wouldn't.

He just put up lazy LP's. That is it.

Fair enough to test how it goes.

And let's not get into the fact that his fans donated money to him so he could buy a damn Wii U in the first place.

And what is wrong with that?
People apparently wanted him to make Nintendo content and he never denied havening received donations. And he bought that Nintendo gear that people donated for (and more by his own money) and tried to produce content so no fraud involved at all.
It still turns out that he can?t make Nintendo content either under the Nintendo system as it is not profitable nor independent as videos still get claimed.
Why make a video that only earns you 60% of what a video for a product of different company would have made?
Yes there are Youtubers out there that can shit all over that system like Pewdiepie who if he loses some money on a video couldn?t care much but Joe isn?t among them.
He can live of Youtube, great. But he isn?t fucking rich.

Criminy, there is nothing more pathetic than watching a grown man throw a hissy fit.

Ah right complaining about being treated unfairly and informing your community that producing any content under given circumstances is uneconomically and therefore not happening is unmanly? this is not only some random hobby dude that is his damn fucking job!

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.

No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical. James Rolfe for instance reviews games and sets them up as comedy sketches. Both educational AND satirical. Joe's reviews of games are also the same because those are educational.

Let's Plays do not fall under that. They are neither educational or satirical and no amount of unscripted commentary is going to change that.

 

[senordesol]

To put it another way youtubers are giving publishers millions of dollars of free advertising. A national network commercial in the US would cost Nintendo around $350,000 allowing LP's could save them money.

Damn skippy. Not to mention that the money Nintendo could conceivably get from Tubers is paltry compared to potential revenue each video could generate through sales alone.

I mean, on average, a Tuber will earn about $2 per thousand views. Joe has ~2M subcribers so even if every single one of his subs watched his video, the MOST he could walk away with is $4,000 which means Nintendo would bogart a cool $1,600... which isn't enough to so much as pay a single QA Tester for a month (but it IS enough to cover the rent for most people).

However, if just 1% of Joe's subscriber base decided they were convinced by his video and bought Nintendo's game -even assuming they already have a Wii U- Nintendo just made $120,000 AT LEAST for zero work and zero expense.

It's not hard to figure out why Joe is frustrated.

 

[senordesol]

Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.

No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical.

Or for purposes of Review or Commentary.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Now, while Nintendo is being retarded about this, I don't see this as anything of value being lost.
Angry Joe is neither fun nor interesting and combined with the fact that everyone and their grandmother saw a copyright notice comming... yeah. Good luck.

 

[mad825]

If you actually watch the video he points out at 9:50 that he was effectively testing the waters with Let's Play videos rather than spending thirty to sixty hours actually producing a proper review as he does for other games because he thought this might happen. The video linked in the OP is basically "yup, so you went and actually went through on those threats. Well, screw you, Nintendo".

Yeah okay, whatever. I suppose the whole him pointing out the fact of him spent $900 on Nintendo goodies, preaching to the choir and how he's trying to save Nintendo from themselves. Yeahh, okay, "testing the waters".

Oh, then blames Nintendo in the end. Are we watching the same video?

 

[Gorrath]

Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.

No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical. James Rolfe for instance reviews games and sets them up as comedy sketches. Both educational AND satirical. Joe's reviews of games are also the same because those are educational.

Let's Plays do not fall under that. They are neither educational or satirical and no amount of unscripted commentary is going to change that.

Has that actually been ruled in a court of law? I'd be interested to see a court case decided one way or the other on "Let's Play." And under U.S. copyright law, fair use does not only apply to educational or satirical use, so I'm not sure where you get that from. You seem to be including "criticism" under educational use, but that's not always the case. Some criticism is academic and some is not but both are protected under fair use. What's more, the law provides the fair use umbrella for educational purposes, news reporting, criticism, limited restoration of a damaged copy and comment. "Let's Play" may or may not fall under that last bit, so unless you've seen a court case stating that they don't, I can't see how your assertion stands up. You may be right, but it's not up to you, or I, or Nintendo, or Google to make that legal determination, it's up to the courts.

I've seen articles arguing both ways on this from people who quote the copyright laws verbatim. It is hardly a clear matter; unless of course you can show that it is. I'd be happy to see that sort of clarification if you can provide it.

 

[Carrots_macduff]

quote from the creators program website

"The Nintendo Creators Program is a service through which Nintendo gives you part of the advertising proceeds it receives from YouTube for your Nintendo-related YouTube videos."

that money your videos are generating, thats ours, but you can have some if you get down on your filthy peasants knees and suck my dick

 

[Mortuorum]

Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.

No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical.

Or for purposes of Review or Commentary.

Correct. While most of the conversation on the Internet is - for reasons obvious to anyone who's spent any time on the Internet - biased against content producers and towards content consumers (and effectively meaningless), a quick Google search did turn up several scholarly articles that argue convincingly that Let's Plays are (or at least should be) protected under Fair Use:

https://iplsrutgers.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/do-lets-play-videos-constitute-fair-use/
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MonaIbrahim/20131212/206912/Deconstructing_Lets_Play_Copyright_and_the_YouTube_Content_ID_Claim_System_A_Legal_Perspective.php

I am not a lawyer, but Craig Drachtman is a published Juris Doctor candidate at Rutgers and Mona Ibrahim is a practicing attorney. I trust that their interpretations have more than a modicum of validity.

 

[loa]

According to Polygon, the Nintendo Creators Program allows "YouTubers [to] still realize ad revenue under the program, [but] Nintendo takes a 40 percent cut of it." Another restriction? YouTubers in the Creators Program can only use approved games from this whitelist [https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/whitelist/], and Mario Party 10 is absent from said list.

What the hell?
So they take 40% of what's left of your ad revenue but if you want to play jet force gemini, majoras mask, goldeneye or any other game that isn't one of the 7 mentioned n64 games, tough luck?
Why would they do that?

Also wtf are the game grumps doing that allows them to lets play pretty much whatever nintendo game they want?
Are they just lucky? Cause I don't think they do it for free nor do they adhere to that ridiculously short whitelist.

 

[Scrythe]

Before I get to the topic, I'm going to preface that I agree with the opinion that what Nintendo has been doing with their YouTube dealings is pretty stupid. I just don't want this next part to make it sound like I'm defending Nintendo.

This is the kind of arrogance I can't stand with YouTube "content creators" and their bizarre entitlement that they, and only they, deserve 100% of the money they make recording someone else's IP. I mean, their entire fucking job would not exist if it wasn't for the games, and now that companies are saying "You know, I would also like a slice of the pie I just baked", everyone's acting like they're all evil greedy overlords who don't want people to spread the fun these games provide for people.

And Angry Joe is King of Arrogance Mountain.

The biggest slap in the face is that he just got his Wii U after pulling the "TGWTG doesn't pay me, and I can't pretend to be furious at Wii U games unless you fans buy me one" song and dance, and after realizing he can't win Google Dollars for this, he's taking his ball and going home. Thanks fans, for the Wii U! Now go fuck yourselves.

tl;dr Nintendo are being idiots and Joe is being a whiny *****. Also, the sky is blue.

 

[Kaimax]

My question is "Why is Joe feels like the only one getting this?
Gamegrumps plays more Nintendo games than him and they're fine, PBG mostly plays Nintendo games with his latest Pokemon OR&AS series still ongoing and is not covered in the Creators Program.

I feel like Joe is always the odd one out, with his previous Content ID strike, like the Street Fighter one before this.

 

[loa]

This is the kind of arrogance I can't stand with YouTube "content creators" and their bizarre entitlement that they, and only they, deserve 100% of the money they make recording someone else's IP. I mean, their entire fucking job would not exist if it wasn't for the games, and now that companies are saying "You know, I would also like a slice of the pie I just baked", everyone's acting like they're all evil greedy overlords who don't want people to spread the fun these games provide for people.

The gameplay and commentary are transformative. It's not nintendos creation.
Adobe won't come to me, wanting a "slice of the pie it baked" if I publish a picture made with photoshop and sell prints or a photoshop video tutorial with ads on it. Because that would be ridiculous after adobe already has its slice and the rest of the pie on top of a mountain of pies from their licensing fees.

 

[Baresark]

Nintendo... afraid of the internet since it's inception.

 

[Qitz]

Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.

No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical.

Or for purposes of Review or Commentary.

Correct. While most of the conversation on the Internet is - for reasons obvious to anyone who's spent any time on the Internet - biased against content producers and towards content consumers (and effectively meaningless), a quick Google search did turn up several scholarly articles that argue convincingly that Let's Plays are (or at least should be) protected under Fair Use:

https://iplsrutgers.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/do-lets-play-videos-constitute-fair-use/
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MonaIbrahim/20131212/206912/Deconstructing_Lets_Play_Copyright_and_the_YouTube_Content_ID_Claim_System_A_Legal_Perspective.php

I am not a lawyer, but Craig Drachtman is a published Juris Doctor candidate at Rutgers and Mona Ibrahim is a practicing attorney. I trust that their interpretations have more than a modicum of validity.

Yeah but until it's goes to a court room, it won't be ruled on, which I wouldn't expect anytime soon. Not just because its insanely expensive to do so but also if the court rules in favor of the game studio, you just set a precedent for everyone else.

A lot of it makes me wonder if Nintendo is thinking that Youtube search = Google search. Sort of like what Sega did with Shining Force, something you may remember TotalBiscuit bringing up a few times, where they went through and copyright struck a bunch of videos to push their own further up the ladder. They're figuring that if someone with a large audience gets more views than them, then they're entitled to some of the profit.

Personally, if I was in the same boat, I wouldn't cover Nintendo games either. They've got some great stuff but not enough to give them 40% of the ad revenue left over after Google takes 50% (or so) and the MCN takes whatever they take.

 

[WeepingAngels]

and now that companies are saying "You know, I would also like a slice of the pie I just baked"

The pie they just baked is the game itself and they got their slice when the game was bought. A Let's Play is not like an unaltered public broadcast. By it's nature a game can be played differently by different people and the commentary by those people is unique. The video equipment, editing and electricity is not provided by Nintendo and is a cost to the YouTube content creator.

I get that you think Nintendo is being stupid so don't think that I am accusing you of defending Nintendo. I just think you need to not see reviews and Let's Plays the same as an unaltered public broadcast.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

The gameplay and commentary are transformative. It's not nintendos creation.
Adobe won't come to me, wanting a "slice of the pie it baked" if I publish a picture made with photoshop or a photoshop video tutorial.

That's not a good comparison. Adobe Photoshop is a legit tool used in professional work places that have paid for the license to use it to create works. Just recording what you've played of a game and slapping it on Youtube is not no matter how much unscripted commentary you put on it. The closest you can use is a walkthrough; like if you did a video showing how to find a certain object in a game or a strategy to defeat a boss.

What LPs are clearly trying to be is MST3K....but MST3K actually got the rights to use the films it was riffing, either because they were public domain or because they were so cheap it didn't matter.