YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

[SecondPrize]

I know right? I mean how fucking dare Nintendo do something to protect their copyrights when someone monetizes a broadcast of the output of their code? The nerve of those greedy bastards is something else.

 

[Phlap]

He's entirely in the right of course, and if baiting Nintendo to issue a copyright claim was Joe's goal then he has succeeded. Anything that draws more attention to Nintendo's anti-consumer Youtube policies should be commended.

 

[xaszatm]

He's entirely in the right of course, and if baiting Nintendo to issue a copyright claim was Joe's goal then he has succeeded. Anything that draws more attention to Nintendo's anti-consumer Youtube policies should be commended.

Except he hasn't. No copyright claim was made. A monetization claim was. It was Joe who took down the video himself when he realized that he couldn't make money off of it and posted a rant video instead so he could get his pay.

 

[Kaimax]

Angry Joe is making it worst by the minute.
Roosterteeth's The Know made a video about it, in which they're basically saying that Joe is being ignorant when he knows that it's against Nintendo's policies. But they also said that while dumb it's still within Nintendo's right to do that.

But Joe decided to make them his enemies by posting his tweets on facebook basically asking his fans to ridicule the video. Which is ironic in the end since then Achievement Hunter made a video that basically said that they're on his side.

The video (forgot the BBcodes for this site)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bL3kxtvin4

He's now calling all that's against him haters...

 

[Atmos Duality]

Ahh, Youtube, derivative works, and copyright; an ol' chestnut-clusterfuck of topics.
SHORT VERSION: The ideological debate starts and ends with whether you believe current copyright practices (or the current evaluation and value of "unique" information as private property) are fair or not.

Some say there's no evidence that Lets Plays help game sales with exposure, but by the same token there's no evidence that they actively harm game sales either. So spare me the bullshit semantics about why Nintendo is only doing what's "right", or for that matter, any assertions about them being "in their right" because the law agrees with them.

(protip: Outside of ideological semantic rambling, "the law" means very little on Youtube. Definitely much less than most people think. Youtube is massive and carries correspondingly massive public appeal, but ultimately is still a private entity. Consequently, virtually all of their DMCA policing and takedowns are done PURELY INTERNALLY and not via actual law enforcement or courts.)

Personally, I doubt LPs harm companies (especially monoliths like Nintendo) in any significant way and knowing what I know about business, exposure and brand loyalty is generally worth more than any short term revenue. (there's always the risk of misinterpretation and BAD exposure, but unless your company makes a habit fucking with your customers or producing shitty products, that's an extremely unlikely event)

As for Angry Joe...he's all about the business here; he's definitely been around long enough to know better.
So forgive me if I'm not completely buying into his cheese-and-whine act.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Nintendo's policy either, just as I don't like the current state of international copyright law. But that doesn't mean I'm automatically going to feel sorry for the guy that openly admitted he knew this could (and likely would) happen; especially when he knew, going in, that the worst possible outcome wasn't going hurt him or his business significantly either.

Joe will be fine, and that's just fine. But I didn't need to hear him whine to come to that conclusion.

 

[SweetShark]

Also yes, Nintendo have any right about that if it want. I know it sucks for the Youtubers, but this is the reality with the copyrights: If you own it, you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT.
Even if Nintendo decided to delete every fanart of its characters, it CAN.

I actually doubt that.
You see if you take Nintendo to court in the USA about a video review in the lines of let's say Joe's Angry Review or GameTrailers there is a good chance they lose due to fair use.
The thing is no small YouTuber like Joe can afford to take Nintendo to court over a video. It takes years and it costs you upfront since no legal protection I know of covers copyright cases (tells you everything you need to know about the copyright).
So in term of LP maybe? in case of reviews maybe too depends on the review but there is certainly a good chance to get away too.
And no matter them having the right it is still a dick move.

Yes, but I don't think the "fair use" policy cover Joe if he made money out of it. And if I remember right, Joe charge you to see him playing Nintendo games when he streaming [I think, I don't know how it work]. Plus the money he get from Youtube.
For me without know a lot about the laws of copyrights, if someone use the work of other person to make money, well, he must pay.

 

[unacomn]

Not really sure how to feel about the Vargas/Nintendo situation.
But I'll tell you how I feel about the Me/Nintendo situation.

I used to do a news show, like ENN, and on occasion there would be Nintendo stories. It didn't matter if they were 30 seconds or 8 seconds, out of a 10 minute show. Nintendo would claim it all, like my work meant nothing compared to their 8 second video.
What the funk kind of law is there that gives Nintendo the right to invalidate all the time and effort I spent on the entire show, because of those 8 freeking seconds?
After that I resorted to using speeddrawings made in paint about Nintendo games, instead of game footage or images relating to Nintendo. Horrible speeddrawings, because I can't draw. But you could see the message, with Bowser making Mario soup. Samus punching a hole in Mario. Luigi shooting Mario. Basically everyone killing Mario. This went on for about a year. It was cathartic. Still can't get back the money from the videos I made prior to the change, I hope those 10 bucks stick in their throat.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I don't know what to think.

Irony is, I have 3 different 'nintendo' games on my channel, and one of them doesn't appear on Nintendo's whitelist.

I haven't had so much as a content ID match on my channel for any of it.

Yes, I know my videos aren't monetised, and I'm so tiny it's not like anyone really knows I exist, but it's still interesting to see how arbitrary this can get...

Every time I hear this stuff I keep wondering if I should reconsider what I do on my channel...
The thing is, when I started doing videos I didn't actually have that many options.
It was basically games I could play on a Wii U, or nothing.

Just recently I've gotten my PC back, and I have a viable option of playing PC games instead...

But still, this dissapoints me greatly.


I am curious what the distinction actually is...

 

[Strazdas]

How do you feel about Nintendo/Vargas situation?

What Nintendo does is illegal and the sooner everyone drop Nintendo coverage the better. No need to support criminals.

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.

His reaction makes his channel seem like Whining Joe.

No, genting a false copyright strike was nintendos fault and they should be made to pay up for the damaged caused to Vargas.

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

Lets plays are fair use. There will be no argument here - it is a fact. Fair use is also much wider than education or satire. Fair use law is far more complicated than that. i suggest you read it.

but Nintendo is soooo much bigger than Joe realizes.

heres the thing - nintendo isnt big. yes, people talk about it to no end, but Nintendo is actually very small company comapred to other gaming giants. its the smallest console manufacturer. Its smaller than many publishers without their own console. it puts all its eggs in one basket. it cannot afford to anger the internet. The internet is far stronger than many people give it credit for.

No, you're still putting the content on up despite not having the rights to do it.

Lets plays are transformative work protected under fair use. the content Lets player protect is copyrighted to that lets player.

...or because Smosh was willing to talk to Nintendo about their videos and worked out something for their troubles...I mean, its been a while since I was in Youtubing but I don't think that's changed.

Smosh owners are big. really big. one of the largest internet entertainment conglomerate. much larger than Nintendo. Nintendo would have every reason to be afraid to enter legal battle with them.

I know right? I mean how fucking dare Nintendo do something to protect their copyrights when someone monetizes a broadcast of the output of their code? The nerve of those greedy bastards is something else.

Nintendo is not protecting their copyright - their copyright is not being challenged here. A person monetizes a trasnformative work protected under fair use. They decide to use their bully tactics and extort his revenue from him.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

so I was reading joe's twitter and I found something very interesting
[tweet t=https://twitter.com/AngryJoeShow/status/585300183270830080]

My question is why is Nintendo of Japan calling the shots with this, they're in japan why are they telling Nintendo of America how to do their job?

 

[major_chaos]

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it.

That isn't true and you know it. Many companies give blanket permission to content creators because they understand free advertising. And I severely doubt people like, say, TB would be making videos of games from big names like Blizz and EA if those companies were kicking in the door and demanding 40% of the revenue. And even if they somehow were I don't believe for a second someone as ethics centric as TB wouldn't disclose that his content was being controlled by a publisher.

And its not just lets plays affected by this anyway. In the Jimqusition someone linked earlier Jim specifically said he wasn't using any Nintendo clips because if he did the video would get claimed (not the same thing as a takedown), whereas Devolver Digital had zero problems with youtube use of their content.

Remind me again which company is capable of getting its competition begging on its knees to advertise their exclusive games on their exclusive titles with the words "Smash Ballot"? Which company can dominate the entire internet with minimum effort? I might disagree on Nintendo on a lot of things, but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't know how to work the crowd up to a stupefying frenzy whenever it damn well pleases.

Having a rabid fanbase willing to bend over backwards to justify everything they do and breathlessly hanging off their every word does not make them not tragically behind the times, it just shows how powerfully it is to have a longtime fans who instinctively link you with childhood memories. A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.

Also "dominating the entire internet with minimum effort" apparently doesn't translate to sales, seeing as they apparently cant afford to make more then 100 copies of their products any more and might as well be marketing directly to scalpers.

 

[Yuuki]

A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.

But that's enough to keep Nintendo in business, so I don't see them budging for another decade to come. Their loyal fanbase is certainly not going anywhere.

 

[Karadalis]

A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.

But that's enough to keep Nintendo in business, so I don't see them budging for another decade to come. Their loyal fanbase is certainly not going anywhere.

Im still surprised that there are so many of them left... after nintendo all but abandoning their loyal fanbase during the Wii and taking a huge shit on them saying they are simply "not their market" anymore.

Boy it must be frustrating to work for nintendo america right now....

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

My question is why is Nintendo of Japan calling the shots with this, they're in japan why are they telling Nintendo of America how to do their job?

Because they're the ones in charge. NoA is not somehow a separate company, they're a branch of Nintendo thus they listen to the guys in charge in Japan

 

[Coruptin]

ITT: Forum posters in a Native American hooping rolling enthusiasts website believe they are superior to content creators.

 

[Rawbeard]

Nintendo be like "who? what? why do we care? right, we don't!"

 

[xaszatm]

...or because Smosh was willing to talk to Nintendo about their videos and worked out something for their troubles...I mean, its been a while since I was in Youtubing but I don't think that's changed.

Smosh owners are big. really big. one of the largest internet entertainment conglomerate. much larger than Nintendo. Nintendo would have every reason to be afraid to enter legal battle with them.

Um...Nintendo's worth around 15-20 billion dollars. Smosh is only worth 58 million dollars. If you perhaps mean Defy Media, who owns Smosh as well as many other websites, I'd like to see your sources because I could not find anything related to their net worth. In either case, I just used Smosh because it was the example given. All the people who do Nintendo videos and get enough hits to get noticed (GameXplain, SullyPwnz, Coberman143, etc.) have special deals with Nintendo that turns that 30/40% into around the same price as an MSRP or just gets rid the cost altogether due to their handlers taking care of it. Either that, or they're willing to take the risk of the monetization being taken away because they know how many more views it will achieve.

Also, what Vargras situation?

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it.

That isn't true and you know it. Many companies give blanket permission to content creators because they understand free advertising. And I severely doubt people like, say, TB would be making videos of games from big names like Blizz and EA if those companies were kicking in the door and demanding 40% of the revenue. And even if they somehow were I don't believe for a second someone as ethics centric as TB wouldn't disclose that his content was being controlled by a publisher.

And its not just lets plays affected by this anyway. In the Jimqusition someone linked earlier Jim specifically said he wasn't using any Nintendo clips because if he did the video would get claimed (not the same thing as a takedown), whereas Devolver Digital had zero problems with youtube use of their content.

Many developers give blanket permission for people under an MSRP. If you aren't under such a system, though luck. Hell, at least Nintendo is honest in its assholery compared to all other developers. If you're a rising Youtube star and you aren't under protection of an MSRP? Well good fucking luck as your channel will be immediately deleted at the whims of a thousand sharks.

Furthermore, TB HAS disclosed this. He is part of an MSRP, which takes around 20% of his ad revenue. In return, the MSRP is supposed to protect him against monetization claims and takedown notices. Do YOU watch his videos? He's made that clear plenty of times in the past. The current problem with Nintendo (which is something I myself have a problem with) is that Nintendo's program adds on top of the MSRP tax unless you deal with them directly. Is it a problem? Yes it is, but let's not pretend that the other companies are angels who just love Let's Players. They already got their fair cut of the Let's Players money, so no one complains about them.

Remind me again which company is capable of getting its competition begging on its knees to advertise their exclusive games on their exclusive titles with the words "Smash Ballot"? Which company can dominate the entire internet with minimum effort? I might disagree on Nintendo on a lot of things, but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't know how to work the crowd up to a stupefying frenzy whenever it damn well pleases.

Having a rabid fanbase willing to bend over backwards to justify everything they do and breathlessly hanging off their every word does not make them not tragically behind the times, it just shows how powerfully it is to have a longtime fans who instinctively link you with childhood memories. A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.

Also "dominating the entire internet with minimum effort" apparently doesn't translate to sales, seeing as they apparently cant afford to make more then 100 copies of their products any more and might as well be marketing directly to scalpers.

And yet Nintendo can be the top of the twitter charts in just two words. Like I said, I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing. I'm saying that Nintendo is the master of manipulating an audience. I'm sorry that you seem to automatically think that makes me a "rabid Nintendo fanboy" but its true. And of course I know that doesn't translate in sales. So I'd appreciate it if you could talk better without throwing petty insults. It makes your argument look better. Especially since I disagree with Nintendo here as much as I disagree with Angry Joe (what a surprise, you can think both has problems.)

 

[bug_of_war]

No it doesn't. You have better legal and moral stances on you side. Stop using the untrue one in your arsenal. You can do better than this.

I went straight to the Nintendo website that talks about their new program and couldn't find anything saying it excluded youtube reviews. Could you point me in the direction or link me to your source?

Except he didn't drop $900 on Nintendo gear, his fans did. And even if he DID drop that money himself, Nintendo is under no obligations to cater to him. If he wants to do a Let's Play, he needs to follow the same rules as anyone else. We can argue of how effective Nintendo's "strategy" is (I have problems with the creator's program myself) but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't have a right to do this.

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it. You want to know why we don't have any complaints? Because these companies cut deals with the handlers of these Let's Players. Same as Nintendo. It's just that Nintendo does it per a Let's Player basis while most other companies just deal with the handlers instead. And this isn't the creators program, this is how an MSRP works.

No, he didn't drop $900 of his own money on the Wii U and all the accessories/games, I didn't mean to insinuate that he did. What this does show though is that to get a good Wii U experience (4 controllers, game pad, games to play (It is advertised mostly as a party/multiple people come over to play it console)) You've gotta be able to cough up $900. But lets say they're gonna buy the console with 2 controllers and 1 game (right now I'm using Aus prices) it still costs $647.85 for the average person. As of January 28th 2015 they've sold 9.2 million consoles, which means if we're to assume that most people spent the above amount, Nintendo have gained $5,960,220,000. So why does Nintendo need 40% of the add revenue? When you have almost gained 6 billion dollars why do you need an extra $1,000 at most?

Just because Nintendo CAN do this, doesn't mean they SHOULD. The law isn't perfect, and just because you're allowed to be a dick doesn't mean I can't still call you a dick for doing it. They're greedy, they're abusing an imperfect system to get more money for the sake of having more money when it was announced a while ago that Nintendo had enough money to stay afloat even if everything they made bombed for the next decade or so.

Furthermore, it shouldn't matter if a youtube content creator who normally doesn't do lets plays makes a lets play. They've already got a fan base, they're providing content to said fan base, and if fuck all people watch it then they'll stop doing LPs. If you're gonna take the time to buy a console, get some games for it, get video capture software, editing software, learn how to use it, apply those skills, and then make a 30 minute video of you playing the game speaking some shit and having a good time then you deserve the couple a hundred bucks you get for that video. 30 minutes of footage does not equate to a game being spoiled or ruined because games are (generally) long and the part that people enjoy and shove money towards is the actual game play, which a video simply can't give you the full experience of.

As a consumer, you have the right to do WHATEVER you want with the product after purchasing it. It belongs to you, you own it, it's yours now, not theirs.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?

YUP.

No it doesn't. You have better legal and moral stances on you side. Stop using the untrue one in your arsenal. You can do better than this.

I used to do a news show, like ENN, and on occasion there would be Nintendo stories. It didn't matter if they were 30 seconds or 8 seconds, out of a 10 minute show. Nintendo would claim it all, like my work meant nothing compared to their 8 second video.

Perhaps you missed the extremely relevant quote by unacomn here. Its not just LPs that get hit. Its ANYTHING with Nintendo in it. Including news and reviews.


Anyway, its pretty absurd how people are conflating it with films or books because that's just not how it works. Experiencing a book is just reading the book. Experiencing a film is just watching the film. They're both passive experiences and, rightfully, putting it up with commentary is a breach of fair use.

Experiencing a game is NOT watching a game. Its playing it. So lets take more appropriate similar circumstances. Someone takes a video of them and some friends playing a game of Cluedo or Warhammer. I think most people would agree that it'd be totally unreasonable for Hasbro or Games Workshop respectively to claim monetisation of that video on the basis that its their product and they should be paid as such. Or as an even more off the wall one someone takes a video of themselves riding a bike. Does Raleigh have the right to claim money for that video?

 

[xaszatm]

No it doesn't. You have better legal and moral stances on you side. Stop using the untrue one in your arsenal. You can do better than this.

I went straight to the Nintendo website that talks about their new program and couldn't find anything saying it excluded youtube reviews. Could you point me in the direction or link me to your source?

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faq.jsp

I remember there being a more clear link on the matter, but I can no longer find it. Either the page was taken down or it has moved but either way since I value solid evidence I guess I can't say this in as much confidence as before.

Except he didn't drop $900 on Nintendo gear, his fans did. And even if he DID drop that money himself, Nintendo is under no obligations to cater to him. If he wants to do a Let's Play, he needs to follow the same rules as anyone else. We can argue of how effective Nintendo's "strategy" is (I have problems with the creator's program myself) but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't have a right to do this.

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it. You want to know why we don't have any complaints? Because these companies cut deals with the handlers of these Let's Players. Same as Nintendo. It's just that Nintendo does it per a Let's Player basis while most other companies just deal with the handlers instead. And this isn't the creators program, this is how an MSRP works.

No, he didn't drop $900 of his own money on the Wii U and all the accessories/games, I didn't mean to insinuate that he did. What this does show though is that to get a good Wii U experience (4 controllers, game pad, games to play (It is advertised mostly as a party/multiple people come over to play it console)) You've gotta be able to cough up $900. But lets say they're gonna buy the console with 2 controllers and 1 game (right now I'm using Aus prices) it still costs $647.85 for the average person. As of January 28th 2015 they've sold 9.2 million consoles, which means if we're to assume that most people spent the above amount, Nintendo have gained $5,960,220,000. So why does Nintendo need 40% of the add revenue? When you have almost gained 6 billion dollars why do you need an extra $1,000 at most?

Just because Nintendo CAN do this, doesn't mean they SHOULD. The law isn't perfect, and just because you're allowed to be a dick doesn't mean I can't still call you a dick for doing it. They're greedy, they're abusing an imperfect system to get more money for the sake of having more money when it was announced a while ago that Nintendo had enough money to stay afloat even if everything they made bombed for the next decade or so.

Furthermore, it shouldn't matter if a youtube content creator who normally doesn't do lets plays makes a lets play. They've already got a fan base, they're providing content to said fan base, and if fuck all people watch it then they'll stop doing LPs. If you're gonna take the time to buy a console, get some games for it, get video capture software, editing software, learn how to use it, apply those skills, and then make a 30 minute video of you playing the game speaking some shit and having a good time then you deserve the couple a hundred bucks you get for that video. 30 minutes of footage does not equate to a game being spoiled or ruined because games are (generally) long and the part that people enjoy and shove money towards is the actual game play, which a video simply can't give you the full experience of.

As a consumer, you have the right to do WHATEVER you want with the product after purchasing it. It belongs to you, you own it, it's yours now, not theirs.

I'm not saying that Nintendo (or the other companies that do this like Sega) is in the right here. I'm just saying that this is the reality we currently live in. Is it right or even fair? Hell no! I'm just as pissed with Nintendo for having such a program and using such a shotgun method of dealing with it as I am with Joe who seems to be demanding that the rules be different for him. Did you not read my long ass response to you? I know that making Let's Plays are hard work. How much time and effort goes into making them. The research, talks, and deals you have to make with these developers in order to not get smacked with a copyright strike.