Youtubers Upset over Nintendo's New affiliate program

[Pianomanfreak]

Go to the link http://www.gonintendo.com/s/246192 Also what is your thoughts on it?

[wiggy]

Call me a grandpa, but the fact that there are some seriously stupid people out there making money simply by talking over game footage on YouTube annoys the shit out of me.  So, personally, I can't really feel bad for or care about the 'tubers who are/will be affected by this.

Essentially, meh.

[satoshi_matrix]

Sorry Wiggy, but I will call you a grandpa on this one.

I can't take that attitude because I am one of those youtubers.

This is just Nintendo being greedy, plain and simple. Unless you're a massive channel like pewdiepie, you ad revenue taken in from a review of a game is well under $5 in 95% of all cases. Nobody gets rich doing this. We do it because we're passionate about gaming and Nintendo.

In my opinion, you're essentially giving them free advertising already, and even negative reviews build up public awareness and there are those who will seek bad games deliberately. This already aids Nintendo even before revenue is even on the table. Because of that, I think a 60/40 split is fair, where you keep 60% and Nintendo gets the 40%. Or at the absolute worst, 50/50. But this? 60-70% and they can change that to be whatever they want at any time? That no only is unfair, but actively encourages me not to want to review Nintendo games or even buy them to begin with.

The worst part of this is it sets a bad example for other devs. if Nintendo can do this, well what's gonna stop Capcom, Konami, EA, or anyone else? This is terrible for youtube, and terrible for gaming in general.

[larryinc64]

I just signed up for it.

I personally do not mind it. I enjoy making let's plays, but I somewhat agree that the let's players and the gaming companies should share profits. In a let's play, I am using Nintendo's copyrighted characters, music, and other such stuff for MY befit. Nintendo does benefit form exposure, but I doubt Super Mario World or Wind Waker or anything Nintendo really need it, need promotion. People find my videos from Nintendo's IPs, not the other way around. All the games on the list are well known classics.

I feel reviews should be exempt, as that is strictly fair use, but Let's Plays are in a bit of a grey area. I think the video maker should get a larger portion. Though I doubt my 15-500 vews per video will rake in too much money, and I'll only do it to content matched videos.

I just realized Super Smash Bros, any of them, is not involved with this thing, I submitted my SSB play from New Years and my newest video, Mario Kart: Double Dash. I hope they have no problem with swearing and dick jokes.
Games also missing:
Mario RPG, Zelda OOT and MM 64, Donkey Kong Country 1 2 3 64, and a few other classics.

I see it as a licensing fee for use of Nintendo's music and characters, just as MST3K can't make a riff of just any movie without licensing it, or it being public domain.
It won't detour me from playing Nintendo games, because I just love to play them with my friend Matt. We are planning a Zelda thing soon.

[FritzWhite]

I can't take that attitude because I am one of those youtubers.

This is just Nintendo being greedy, plain and simple.

That no only is unfair, but actively encourages me not to want to review Nintendo games or even buy them to begin with.

Not a big deal at all. It's not your content to begin with. They can do what they want with it and they'll do just fine without your so called advertising. I love Wii U and am looking forward to the new 3DS on their own merits.

[Megatron]

Not a big deal at all. It's not your content to begin with. They can do what they want with it and they'll do just fine without your so called advertising. I love Wii U and am looking forward to the new 3DS on their own merits.

This is the type of thinking that has nearly crippled the internet with SOPA and the loss of Net Neutrality.

To avoid a very long winded speech about copyright and fair use, let me summarize...As soon as Nintendo, or anyone else, releases a product for sale, and it is purchased by the consumer, the consumer can claim ownership in some capacity.  They bought it.  They can do with it what they please - they want to break it, eat it, give it away, share it - it is THEIRS to do so.  Copyright comes in to play in terms of "sharing" this with others.  In terms of showing this content to others, video games are not movies or music.  They are classified differently because they are interactive, meaning that one cannot get the experience of playing a video game by watching.  Unlike other forms of media (movies, music) that are passive.

*quick side note* there is something to be said for people who just post all the cutscenes or just put up the entire game without commentary, or anything else **

Once a youtuber, blip user, twitch user etc puts up a video with commentary or edited in some way, the user has ALTERED the original product, meaning that it is NOT the same as if you or I bought it in the store.  it is its own unique experience.  So because of this, copyright is generally not claimed - it falls under the fair use clause which stipulates that a medium may be used for review or parody purposes (as well as a lot of other legal stuff)

The reason this is so blown up is because Youtube is very friendly to copyright holders (for fear of getting sued) so anyone at any time can place a "claim" on a video.  Youtube then determines if it is legit.  The problem is that this results in a "strike" on a youtuber's account.  3 strikes you're out.  YOu'll notice that Twitch TV and Blip are safe havens for a lot of this - it's because they are not as friendly to copyright holders as youtube.  For now.

Anyway - before you start defending the video game companies' "rights" to their games, start thinking about reselling or lending/renting games - if they had their way, you couldn't do that either.  The only way you could play their games was to buy it yourself at the MSRP.  *See Microsoft, circa 2013 Xbox One Reveal*

This new 60/40 split is pretty stingy.  Some partnership programs iffer up to 90% ad revenue, so Nintendo is just trying to cash in.

And as for Nintendo not needing free advertising?  The Wii U has been out over 2 years and sold less than 10 Million units WORLD WIDE.  That is worse than the Gamecube. There are still reports of people thinking the "Wii U" is an add-on for the Wii.  3rd party titles are almost non existant (or just really bad ports).  So the 3DS does great...but Nintendo shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth when people are showing off Bayonetta 2 or some other "must own" game for the Wii U that 85% of the casual market (who make up the majority of gamers, especially on Nintendo) doesn't know exists.  And as for Youtube not helping?  Tell that to Minecraft, Five Nights at Freddie's and Goat Simulator to name a few.

*gets off soapbox*

[wiggy]

Sorry Wiggy, but I will call you a grandpa on this one.

I can't take that attitude because I am one of those youtubers.

This is just Nintendo being greedy, plain and simple. Unless you're a massive channel like pewdiepie, you ad revenue taken in from a review of a game is well under $5 in 95% of all cases. Nobody gets rich doing this. We do it because we're passionate about gaming and Nintendo.

In my opinion, you're essentially giving them free advertising already, and even negative reviews build up public awareness and there are those who will seek bad games deliberately. This already aids Nintendo even before revenue is even on the table. Because of that, I think a 60/40 split is fair, where you keep 60% and Nintendo gets the 40%. Or at the absolute worst, 50/50. But this? 60-70% and they can change that to be whatever they want at any time? That no only is unfair, but actively encourages me not to want to review Nintendo games or even buy them to begin with.

The worst part of this is it sets a bad example for other devs. if Nintendo can do this, well what's gonna stop Capcom, Konami, EA, or anyone else? This is terrible for youtube, and terrible for gaming in general.

On the flip side, people are making money because of it.  You couldn't make money yapping about Nintendo products if there were no Nintendo products.

Also, there are plenty of people making a really good living via youtube, and that's why Nintendo gives a crap now (as they well should).

Not a big deal at all. It's not your content to begin with. They can do what they want with it and they'll do just fine without your so called advertising. I love Wii U and am looking forward to the new 3DS on their own merits.

This is the type of thinking that has nearly crippled the internet with SOPA and the loss of Net Neutrality.

To avoid a very long winded speech about copyright and fair use, let me summarize...As soon as Nintendo, or anyone else, releases a product for sale, and it is purchased by the consumer, the consumer can claim ownership in some capacity.  They bought it.  They can do with it what they please - they want to break it, eat it, give it away, share it - it is THEIRS to do so.  Copyright comes in to play in terms of "sharing" this with others.  In terms of showing this content to others, video games are not movies or music.  They are classified differently because they are interactive, meaning that one cannot get the experience of playing a video game by watching.  Unlike other forms of media (movies, music) that are passive.

*quick side note* there is something to be said for people who just post all the cutscenes or just put up the entire game without commentary, or anything else **

Once a youtuber, blip user, twitch user etc puts up a video with commentary or edited in some way, the user has ALTERED the original product, meaning that it is NOT the same as if you or I bought it in the store.  it is its own unique experience.  So because of this, copyright is generally not claimed - it falls under the fair use clause which stipulates that a medium may be used for review or parody purposes (as well as a lot of other legal stuff)

The reason this is so blown up is because Youtube is very friendly to copyright holders (for fear of getting sued) so anyone at any time can place a "claim" on a video.  Youtube then determines if it is legit.  The problem is that this results in a "strike" on a youtuber's account.  3 strikes you're out.  YOu'll notice that Twitch TV and Blip are safe havens for a lot of this - it's because they are not as friendly to copyright holders as youtube.  For now.

Anyway - before you start defending the video game companies' "rights" to their games, start thinking about reselling or lending/renting games - if they had their way, you couldn't do that either.  The only way you could play their games was to buy it yourself at the MSRP.  *See Microsoft, circa 2013 Xbox One Reveal*

This new 60/40 split is pretty stingy.  Some partnership programs iffer up to 90% ad revenue, so Nintendo is just trying to cash in.

And as for Nintendo not needing free advertising?  The Wii U has been out over 2 years and sold less than 10 Million units WORLD WIDE.  That is worse than the Gamecube. There are still reports of people thinking the "Wii U" is an add-on for the Wii.  3rd party titles are almost non existant (or just really bad ports).  So the 3DS does great...but Nintendo shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth when people are showing off Bayonetta 2 or some other "must own" game for the Wii U that 85% of the casual market (who make up the majority of gamers, especially on Nintendo) doesn't know exists.  And as for Youtube not helping?  Tell that to Minecraft, Five Nights at Freddie's and Goat Simulator to name a few.

*gets off soapbox*

When you buy a game, you're actually purchasing a license.  BIG difference.

You may own a plastic and aluminum disc, but that's it.  You own NOTHING else.

[Megatron]

^
You do purchase the license, and under fair use laws you are allowed to take certain liberties with that license.  Showing 20 mins of random footage while critiquing the controls constitutes a review and under fair use protection, i.e. Nintendo cannot claim ownership...except in the mystical place of "youtube land"

[Megatron]

Every time I hear people complain about people making money off of youtube, all I can do is roll my eyes at them.  Most of the time people are just upset they didn't think of it first.  I'm not a big fan of PewDiePie, but the guy has international appeal, and he lucked out.  Good for him.  People like the AVGN brought interest back to retro gaming (which is good AND bad).  And some of the most watched channels on YouTube are devoted to games.  Most companies have realized the benefits of this and backed away from it.  Nintendo is not what they used to be, and they want to capitalize anyway they can.  I get it.  

But for those saying they shouldn't make money off it?  Get off your high horse.  Wiggy, you sell video games that other people have made.  Sure, you modify them, make them your own, but you didn't program the games, did you?  You simply make money off other people's stuff.  Which is exactly what every other market in the world does.  You use something made by someone else to make something of your own.  Reviews, commentaries, critiques, funny fail videos...these are all forms of entertainment made by content creators who entertain others.  People roll their eyes because it's youtube, but in a generation or two, I wouldn't be surprised to see youtube (or something like it) replace television.

Whether or not you LIKE youtube gaming videos is a matter of taste.  And frankly, I don't care for a lot of them.  But this boils down to the principals of free speech, censorship, and stretching copyright claims beyond their boundaries.  Of course companies should be paid for their work.  But somebody reviewing Mario Kart 8 for 15 minutes doesn't owe Nintendo a dime.  And the sad fact is that a lot of these "copyright claims" that have popped up in recent years boil down to two things:  1, PewDiePie and those like him making serious BANK (who are the major outliers since 99% don't make a third as much as him).  And 2, most of the reviews are NEGATIVE.  Companies don't like it when their $60 game gets shit on by the youtube community.  Right, Dying Light?

[Blumpkin]

I'm in the grandpa group too. I don't feel sorry for YouTubers that make money off someone else's property. You don't want to play by Nintendo's rules? Fine, go out and buy the game yourself.

But then again, I don't understand the surge of let's plays either. I don't understand why people would rather watch someone else play a game instead of playing it themselves.

[TDIRunner]

I'm in the grandpa group too. I don't feel sorry for YouTubers that make money off someone else's property. You don't want to play by Nintendo's rules? Fine, go out and buy the game yourself.

But then again, I don't understand the surge of let's plays either. I don't understand why people would rather watch someone else play a game instead of playing it themselves.

I actually find the "lets play" videos helpful in determining if I would like a game or not.  I use them along with traditional game reviews.

[shenske]

I'm part of the old man group.

It's not that you should owe Nintendo anything ... BUT if you are making money off of nintendo's intellectual property then them getting a piece of that shouldn't be a problem.

There are no upfront costs correct? Just revenue sharing?

[sheep2001]

i must be part of the old man group, as i didn't even realise people WERE getting paid for gaming videos.  Who is paying them?  and for what?  It's not exactly advertising, unless they are being paid to say how good something is.

I know alot of (successful) bloggers and vbloggers get freebies in order to advertise stuff (which is fair enough unless they promote utter shit, in which case they soon get found out), but really didn't know money was changing hands.  If nintendo want a slice of the action, whose money is it they want to take, and how do they propose to get it?  Also, are these people paying taxes on earnings, or is it all virtual cloud money?  Sorry, i probasbly should have watched the video, but not enough time today.

[larryinc64]

@Sheep, users like Game Grumps and PewDiePie get paid ad revenue in real money for playing games and commentating/ making jokes over it. They are very successful.



The program only applies to most Mario, Zelda, Metroid, F-ZERO, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Star Fox, and the black box NES games. Not every single Nintendo game. Bayonetta, and Pokemon are not involved.

[larryinc64]

Once a youtuber, blip user, twitch user etc puts up a video with commentary or edited in some way, the user has ALTERED the original product, meaning that it is NOT the same as if you or I bought it in the store.  it is its own unique experience.  So because of this, copyright is generally not claimed - it falls under the fair use clause which stipulates that a medium may be used for review or parody purposes (as well as a lot of other legal stuff)

But taking a let's play down to the basic description, commentating over a copyrighted work.

Out of curiosity, I began to dig around, trying to find some of the legal information on shows such as MST3K, and Beavis and Butthead. 2 shows that basically do the same thing LPs do.
I can't find much about it, I know MST3K had to get the rights to the movies they riffed, and many episodes can no longer be sold due to loss of rights.
Even sampling recordings seems to fall in a grey aria, when many of them are transmissive.

The fact that you are talking over large portions of video and audio does not make transformitive to the point of fair use.
The big problem I see is most let's plays are not reviews or parodies.
Total Biscut's "WTF Is?" is a review because a majority of it is talking about the game and it's strengths and weaknesses. Game Grumps is not a review, sometimes is a parody, but a good chunk of the videos are idle conversation or jokes that have little to do with the game. Power Plaid Plays (My show) is not review and rarely parody. I feel my show is not protected under fair use.

and length factors into it as well. Short clips for review to show an example, a review can't really show the entire movie, or entire scenes. LPs can use hours of footage.

It's a legal grey area, and no court case has ever determined the fair use of Let's Plays. But I don't think most of them fall under it.

TL;DR
I'm no lawer, but from what I gathered, a Let's Play is not inherently free use. Depending on how the game is used and what the host is saying can make it fair use.