Forum - View topicNEWS: Nintendo Claiming Ad Revenue for YouTube Game Videos
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Animehermit
 Posts: 964 Location: The Argama |
|
|||||||||||
It's not professional critics I'm worried about, it's the amateur ones who don't receive review copies. Especially with how asinine the games journalism industry is right now. AFAIK the way they're sifting through content is through YouTube's Content IP, which doesn't differentiate an LP from a review. You make some other good points too, I don't think LPs are some high form of art, but I do think that they have merit within the gaming industry and community. And I think actively discouraging them is bad for the industry and consumer. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Jen Bigby
 Posts: 112 |
|
|||||||||||
|
I'm confused.
 Aren't they just putting ads on videos and not pulling videos? All the people who say they want people to keep making videos because it got them into certain games or reviews might get hit.. what is being changed for them? The videos will still be there and content creators can still make them they will just have ads on them now. You guys can still watch them
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Animehermit
Posts: 964 Location: The Argama |
|
|||||||||||
The change is that the person making the videos won't be getting any add revenue. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
nottimkai
 Posts: 77 |
|
|||||||||||
|
God I love popcorn!!
This issue has layers. It's DEEP, man! On the one hand, we have Nintendo who decides to take the ad revenue from Lets Play videos where their content is being used without permission. On the other hand, we have a whole bunch of Entitled Gamers who don't understand copyright law acting extremely butthurt. On the gripping hand, Nintendo's press release about it is INCREDIBLY SMARMY! I actually laughed reading it! That argument goes to you, Keonyn! @keonyn - yes, Nintendo's press release was really smarmy. They should have dropped the florid, politically correct language and been up front about this - We are taking your ad revenue because you are using our content without permission. We're doing you a favor and not suing you or having your videos removed. Please make more because hot damn do we like having your ad revenue. You made a good point there, but the rest of your arguments just don't mesh. If the PS4 has twitch.tv integration, that's grand! They want you to share your videos of their games with friends! Stir up some excitement! It's a good plan! You know what's not in this plan? The gamers making money off those videos! Hold on a second, the popcorn is really salty, I'm going to eat some fruit salad and address one of your comments aimed at Zac:
It really isn't apples and oranges. Nintendo isn't taking down the videos so that we the viewers can't watch them, which is the only way your argument here would work. They are taking the Ad revenue from the LPers, who are PLAYING THE GAME. They are using the IP without permission, and making money off it. So just as Matt Groening could sue Zac for revenue from all those drawings of Bart Simpson he's selling, Nintendo is in the right in this circumstance. Arguing morals or honor or what's fair is moot (and silly). This is The Law we're talking about! Oh, darn, I'm out of popcorn. Be right back! |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Keonyn
 Subscriber Posts: 5567 Location: Coon Rapids, MN |
|
|||||||||||
|
Except of course people do make money off their Twitch.tv channels, and Sony has already said they currently do not have plans to get involved with that. Again, Judge Dredd, Nintendo can talk about "the law" all they want, but it's only against "the law" because they chose to object to and control the usage of the content. So again, one company takes this action while the majority of the industry takes a far friendlier and community oriented approach, even going so far as encouraging it, and yet we're supposed to ignore Nintendo's blatantly greedy actions because it's "the law".
The law gives them the right to control their copyright, just as it does other companies. But they're really the only one aside from the likes of EA who choose to do it this way. Sorry, but people calling out a company for their actions isn't wrong, and not surprisingly this is the only forum/community I frequent where Nintendo apologists have any real presence (not surprising since Nintendo is a staple of Japan). Besides, the law is there to enforce what is morally right, so morals are actually a central element of the matter. Also, cut the condescending "lolz, I'm trolling and eating popcorn" crap or we're going to have greater issues. At any rate, since it's clear an objective and rational discussion is out of the question, looks like we're done here. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
nottimkai
Posts: 77 |
|
|||||||||||
That would be incredible if true! It would undermine my entire argument! Could you provide a link to the article or press release that says this so that I can keep myself from making the same mistake elsewhere?
... Really? So if I break into a jeweler's and steal the display case, it's only illegal if I get caught?
Gotcha. Even though I was polite and this thread is perfectly 'popcorn-amusing', because I disagree with you and you're a mod, I'm trolling and should stay silent.
I will not argue with your sentence. Sheesh. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Polycell
 Posts: 4623 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Mesonoxian Eve
Posts: 1858 |
|
|||||||||||
Since copyright defenders love to bring this argument up, here's a question right back at it: wouldn't it be? Think about it. If a thief steals all the jewels, what part of "the law" stopped them? None of it. Not a single clause in any of the multitude of laws on the books prevented the theft of the jewels. So, when is law applicable? It's only when the thief is caught. Then, and only then, does the applicable laws start to apply, which can range from grand theft to breaking and entering. In fact, the sheer number of laws can vary depending on the prosecutor the thief gets. Hell, let's just throw in a 1902 blue law because the criminal wore a Fedora on the day the theft occurred. In any reasonable society, laws aren't there to prevent a crime. They're applicable after the crime has occurred. It's a punishment system, not a deterrent system (though, far too many believe it acts as one). Look at the number of underage drinkers despite the law stating it's illegal. People break laws every day and it's not until they're caught that they're punished for it. Hell, just drive on any freeway if you want further proof. Thus, the answer is "yes". |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||||||||
It'd be more apt to say 'you're only punished for it if you get caught'. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
LUNI_TUNZ
 Posts: 809 |
|
|||||||||||
Oh? Well, if that's the case, what's this argument about, again? Because outside of the war cry of "FANBOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYY", I could have sworn the argument was that Nintendo has full rights to do it, because it's there content.
Based on his response to Titan's last question, since he threw the claim out there, and you asked for evidence, it's your job to prove him wrong. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||||||||
Here, here's one of many twitch broadcasters that makes a living doing it. http://www.twitch.tv/dansgaming |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
nottimkai
Posts: 77 |
|
|||||||||||
And that's part of my point. The action is illegal in the eyes of the law. If you are not caught or punished for breaking the law, Mesonoxian, you have still broken the law. You are still a criminal. I'm not casting stones here, I am a criminal too by my own definition. I sped on the way to work, I littered a cigarette butt out my car window, and I'm sure there were others. Therefore, I am a criminal. I wasn't caught or punished for the crimes, but that does not mean that the crimes weren't committed!
Oh, thanks Zac! However, I was referring to Keonyn's claim that Sony has stated they "[have] already said they currently do not have plans to get involved with that", meaning they don't care if people make money by streaming videos of their content and then collecting ad revenue. I would like to see where Sony has stated they are taking such a community oriented hands off approach to their intellectual property. I don't want to spread false information in my ignorance. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Mesonoxian Eve
Posts: 1858 |
|
|||||||||||
No, nottimkai. A criminal is one who is punished by the legal system. Sure, you can label someone a criminal all you want, but in the US, you are innocent until you are proven guilty. Furthermore, you do realize with every post you copy, you are breaking the law. Did you know that? No one's going to think it's illegal to quote posts of other people, but under US copyright law, it's infringing. Worse, it's intentional, which means anyone who decides to sue you can seek the maximum penalty under law, which is $250,000 per instance. Now, you may say it's Fair Use, and you'd be right, but therein lies the problem: It's not Fair Use until a court of law says it is. Do you understand now? Everyone throws out Fair Use as though it's automatically applied, but it's not. Ever. Not only would you have to defend yourself, but the cost in doing so is a burden you most likely couldn't handle, and thus, you'd settle. This is why copyright is one-sided. Defendants don't get a fair shake, ever, because if they should win their case, they still lost thousands of dollars that can never be recouped. I hope you never find yourself in this situation, but unfortunately for you (and others reading this), the likelihood grows every single day, especially if you should become a "success", such as these videos did on YouTube's site. Right or wrong, moral or not, it doesn't matter. Copyright's sole purpose is to punish infringers first, then sort out the financial paperwork later. That's not a fair system. It's a stifling one and it favors those who have names like Disney, Paramount, and Sony, just to name a few (since, after all, they're the companies that helped write the law in the first place, but we'll leave that conflict of interest alone for now). I've been fighting this type of stupidity for nearly 20 years of my life, nottimkai. It's been daunting, to say the least, as it seems every year, I find more people like you standing up and defending a law you do not know or understand. Yet, you waste little time trying to educate me in that "it's illegal", going so far as literally skipping right over the judicial due process and automatically brand someone a criminal. I see a bright future ahead of you, should you decide to work for the US Department of Justice, with this attitude. I think I'll be done now. This is a touchy subject for me and I don't want to turn this into 14 pages of copyright debate. If you want to continue, PM me. I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you, but now, I'll leave you with "agree to disagree". Enjoy your day. 
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Animehermit
Posts: 964 Location: The Argama |
|
|||||||||||
The PS4 has Ustream integration built into the machine and it's possible to make money off of Ustream.
Whether or not it's right for Nintendo to do this. Whether they should have done it in the first place. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Fennekin
Posts: 49 |
|
|||||||||||
The success or failure of the WiiU is beyond the point. Why should movies, television shows and songs get copyright but not video games? A lot of work goes into these games, and these "LPers" are getting money from contributing nothing to the creation of the game, just playing it. I think it's great Nintendo is doing this, and hopefully, they can target the big-name LPers. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group