Youtubers Upset over Nintendo's New affiliate program

[Taco]

In all honesty it's quite fair, a lot of let's plays use emulators which are not licensed by Nintendo there for you're playing pirated games and posting the proof on YouTube. I'm not against emulators in anyways they can save you lots of money playing old games like little Samson and dinosaur peak but it's still technically illegal cause you're downloading the games for free off the internet. So if they're gonna complain about it buy a nintendo or third party product and the actual game. Nintendo could slam their fist down on emulators but people are getting enjoyment from them and that's their main concern ever since the gamecube so them taking ad revenue from people sitting around doing nothing but playing video games is quite okay. It's their product and you paid to play it not to make money off it by the content. So all in all if they're complaining about it they should just stop doing it nintendo has the right to do it it's still their product through and through.

[noemann]

Taco beat me to the emulation video subject. For the most part, I could care less aout this topic. I cannot believe anyone is profiting from it. wtf?

However, I cannot stand legal bullies:  Licensed by Nintendo means "we don't own the rights." Nintendo only owns the rights to a handful of titles, such as Mario and DK. Nintendo is starting to resemble the NFL and Toys Are Us (remember the Road Kills Are Us website? LOL)

I use youtube sometimes to help with strategies. For example, i had trouble herding the grannies in Earthworm Jim 3-D for N64 and a youtube video allowed me to see how it's done so i don't have to try it 50million times. I'd hate to see video-guides disappear altogether. Guess i better start downloading all of the retro vids... replacing intelligent puzzles with toe-nail grabbing jumps with angle precision is garbage programming. I'd rather play a game that asks me to translate an ancient Greek book before proceeding. Thus, i like Myst and Riven much better than Mario Bros. and the pipe dreams.

[Taco]

Taco beat me to the emulation video subject. For the most part, I could care less aout this topic. I cannot believe anyone is profiting from it. wtf?

However, I cannot stand legal bullies:  Licensed by Nintendo means "we don't own the rights." Nintendo only owns the rights to a handful of titles, such as Mario and DK. Nintendo is starting to resemble the NFL and Toys Are Us (remember the Road Kills Are Us website? LOL)

I use youtube sometimes to help with strategies. For example, i had trouble herding the grannies in Earthworm Jim 3-D for N64 and a youtube video allowed me to see how it's done so i don't have to try it 50million times. I'd hate to see video-guides disappear altogether. Guess i better start downloading all of the retro vids... replacing intelligent puzzles with toe-nail grabbing jumps with angle precision is garbage programming. I'd rather play a game that asks me to translate an ancient Greek book before proceeding. Thus, i like Myst and Riven much better than Mario Bros. and the pipe dreams.

it's just like back in the 80's they did it to toys r us and tengen. Also the video guides help me a lot I don't mind those those are fair use in my opinion as they help others but  let's plays is just for profit IMO as if your playing it cause other people wanna watch who's that helping? So video guides yes, let's plays meh not so much.

[satoshi_matrix]

Well, it looks like it's impossible for me to even sign up. The only countries where you can join are Japan and the United States. rest of the world including Canada is SOL.

Fix this Nintendo. Right away.

[noemann]

Taco beat me to the emulation video subject. For the most part, I could care less aout this topic. I cannot believe anyone is profiting from it. wtf?

However, I cannot stand legal bullies:  Licensed by Nintendo means "we don't own the rights." Nintendo only owns the rights to a handful of titles, such as Mario and DK. Nintendo is starting to resemble the NFL and Toys Are Us (remember the Road Kills Are Us website? LOL)

I use youtube sometimes to help with strategies. For example, i had trouble herding the grannies in Earthworm Jim 3-D for N64 and a youtube video allowed me to see how it's done so i don't have to try it 50million times. I'd hate to see video-guides disappear altogether. Guess i better start downloading all of the retro vids... replacing intelligent puzzles with toe-nail grabbing jumps with angle precision is garbage programming. I'd rather play a game that asks me to translate an ancient Greek book before proceeding. Thus, i like Myst and Riven much better than Mario Bros. and the pipe dreams.

it's just like back in the 80's they did it to toys r us and tengen. Also the video guides help me a lot I don't mind those those are fair use in my opinion as they help others but  let's plays is just for profit IMO as if your playing it cause other people wanna watch who's that helping? So video guides yes, let's plays meh not so much.

i've seen those "let's play" videos before but i skip them for strategy play. I never knew that they were making money from it. insane. I am completely unaware of this youtube ad revenue. interesting. Anyway, good to chat with you Taco. Hope you have a great day. I'm off to work ...

[larryinc64]

However, I cannot stand legal bullies:  Licensed by Nintendo means "we don't own the rights." Nintendo only owns the rights to a handful of titles, such as Mario and DK. Nintendo is starting to resemble the NFL and Toys Are Us (remember the Road Kills Are Us website? LOL)

Nintendo is only doing this with a few select games. The program IS ONLY FOR games that feature Nintendo frachises, but not all of them. Super Smash Bros, Kirby and Pokemon are not on the list, and are unaffected by any claim on a video. My video from New Years, of Super Smash Bros. For Wii U has a small but of Wind Waker HD at the end, and the only content matched the Wind Waker music.

As I said, I see it as a licensing fee. Many YouTubers who complain about copyright law has no idea how it works. I am using Nintendo music and images in my video, for the use of entertainment and not review or satire, it is not fair use, I have no problem giving any future ad revenue I may get for the use of their copyrighted works in my video.

[noemann]

Nintendo is only doing this with a few select games.

I guess i misunderstood the subject as being all games and even strategy guides (in part for argument is fair use; in whole is infringement.)
anyway, i do not post such content but i do enjoy watching a quick strategy video (in part not in whole)

my apologies to Nintendo as i see no bullying.

[FritzWhite]

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*

Actually, they're quite a bit like movies. Games being interactive doesn't change the fact that the content is the publisher's to share as they see fit. Just because you bought a copy of the game doesn't mean you own the content for it anymore than owning a movie gives you the right to make money off showing it publicly. The comparison to selling used games just isn't there. I can sell my used my used game or movie that I purchased. This has always been ok and always will be unless everything moves to a digital format. Making money by showing other people content from my game is totally different and at the discretion of the publisher. If Nintendo or any other company is against that, it's their call on if and how their content is shared.

As for whether it's a smart move of them to lose on some potential free advertising, I don't think it's such a big deal. People are still going to find the games they want to play one way or another. On this note, they should be doing a way better job of advertising the Wii U, but pandering to some youtube mooches is not important to this.

[larryinc64]

On the topic of free advertising, Nintendo might be getting free advertising from YouTubers, but YouTubers who only do parodys and let's plays got free advertising from Nintendo and other gaming companies.

I got into Nintendo from early videos by people like AVGN, I got into AVGN from looking for information on Nintendo. I would never know who AVGN if it was not for Nintendo.

Game Grumps, Egoraptor, JonTon, Smooth McGroove, Mega64, Screwattack, Pewdiepie, Brentalfloss, Duane and Brando, Polaris, Jesse Cox, Jim Sterling, Zero Punctuation, Peanut Butter Gamer, Pat the NES Punk, Lazy Game Reviews, Boogie2988, ReviewTechUSA, Gaming Historian, GameXplain, and Power Plaid Plays (AKA Me)

The entire career of these YouTube users are launched on the backs of Nintendo and other gaming companies.

[wiggy]

^
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"

Fair use, and civil law in general, is almost always misinterpreted. Hell, lawyers struggle with and fight over it, as it's loosely written, and it's not at all with you or I in mind.   

Seeing as YouTubing has actually become a profession, and the income generated from the videos which are profitable depend very heavily on the footage and imagery which Nintendo owns, I think it's totally within Nintendo's rights to claim some of that revenue. People should be happy that they're not simply shutting them down entirely.

[TDIRunner]

On the topic of free advertising, Nintendo might be getting free advertising from YouTubers, but YouTubers who only do parodys and let's plays got free advertising from Nintendo and other gaming companies.

I got into Nintendo from early videos by people like AVGN, I got into AVGN from looking for information on Nintendo. I would never know who AVGN if it was not for Nintendo.

Game Grumps, Egoraptor, JonTon, Smooth McGroove, Mega64, Screwattack, Pewdiepie, Brentalfloss, Duane and Brando, Polaris, Jesse Cox, Jim Sterling, Zero Punctuation, Peanut Butter Gamer, Pat the NES Punk, Lazy Game Reviews, Boogie2988, ReviewTechUSA, Gaming Historian, GameXplain, and Power Plaid Plays (AKA Me)

The entire career of these YouTube users are launched on the backs of Nintendo and other gaming companies.

You forgot my favorite.
 
Game Sack

 

[Megatron]

I wish I had more time to say my piece, but I will post this for now:

Cliffnotes version of fair use

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

The highlights:

 Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

        The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
        The nature of the copyrighted work
        The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
        The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

I do not care if some of you disagree with the laws, or they are poorly written, etc.  The fact is that if someone, let's use AVGN, shows a grand total of 7 minutes of Super Mario 3 and criticizes or comments, etc - Nintendo is entitled to NOTHING.  These types of videos offer a unique, subjective experience that "legally" changes the content of the footage.  Same way movie critics can do this.  They can't show the whole film, but they can summarize and show clips.  Now, as I previously stated, I am NOT defending let's plays or all cutscenes videos, or anything that is just the game in it's entirety,  I am speaking about everything else.

And for everyone claiming intellectual property doesn't apply to reselling games, I have 3 letters for you...D.R.M.  Remember that?  Remember how OK everyone was with that?  How the content creators argued they lose money because people resell?  If they had their way, the used market would be dead and buried.  
And don't bother wasting your breath (or time typing) claiming that these youtubers were built on the backs of Nintendo, Sega, etc.  
Nintendo is a company providing goods and services...they work FOR YOU.  You do not work for them.  You don't buy, they die. 

And let's not forget...technically Nintendo could come to THIS website and argue that (even though these covers are free) they are infringing on copyrighted images of their characters.  So be careful how much power you give these companies.  EA, Capcom, UbiSoft...these companies got greedy in many ways, claiming videos, etc. and ended up losing in the end.      

[Megatron]

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.

MST3K actually started with a lot of Public Domain films before the show began to buy the rights.  As for Beavis & Butthead, the show only aired clips from music videos (and later other MTV shows) which MTV already owns/has the rights to.
Not an argument, just an FYI

[palmer6strings]

I have not read all the posts, just because this topic really annoys the shit out of me. (Not that I will lash out at anyone mind you.)

I honestly think that it's a bunch of shit that companies try to take down the little guy saying that they should be owed money due to a product they put out 20+ years ago is still theirs to make money on.

How many of us like taxes?? I know I certainly don't as a matter of fact I fucking hate them. Well these companies like Nintendo are pretty much doing the same thing. Taking money that isn't theirs to take.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty. Say you want to record yourself doing a nice burnout in your nice late 60's Camaro or Mustang or whatever you wish you had, just to post on youtube. In all sense Chevrolet or Ford "Could/Should" be able to have a nice little cut of any profit you make off that video.

Or hey, I'm and ESP guitar and Peavey Amplification fan, so lets say I wrote this Kickass song, threw a video of myself playing it, (to which you would be able to see exactly what equipment I use) and made 20 grand off of it.

Oh but wait, I'm using those 2 companies stuff that they don't own anymore. To bad for me because they still take a cut.

Seriously. Think about this. It just proves that everyone is out to fuck over everyone else just to get ahead in life. You can disagree with me if you want. but it is a sad truth.

[larryinc64]

AVGN uses footage in a review, and it is under fair use. I agree that Nintendo is entitled to none of his revenue. Or Egoraptors animated parodies, again fair use. Let's plays (as in videos 10+ minutes involving a person playing a game and talking over it) are what I'm mostly talking about.

The Nintendo Program seems to be guided towards Let's Plays.

What I meant by the list of YouTubers (one of them is me) who's channels were built off of Nintendo/ Sony/ Ect, is their entire channel is centered around the works of Nintendo. I found out about most of thous people from searching for Video Game related material.
Let me elaborate on what I mean:

A description of one of my videos would be "Matt and Larry play Super Mario 64"
Out of that description, what do you think would bring people to click on the video? To a newcomer, they have no idea who we are, a video just about Matt and Larry would just be ignored, but the main draw is Super Mario 64. "Oh, I love that game, I wonder what this video is all about" On my video icons, the games name is always more prominent than ours. I could remove my channels name and it would have no affect, because when you are starting, no one cares about you. That is why it is so much harder to get yourself out there when all you do is original content, it's not imposable but your growth will be much slower.

The list of people above, all the people's fans are from people who were fans of things they played or parodied. If Nintendo did not exist, their channels would not ehter. What would Brentalfloss give lyrics if there is no game to get it from? AVGN would be nowhere as popular if he only had his indie movies and never did AVGN. Egoraptor only has around 2-3 animations that to not involve video games. He even said in an interview in response to how to start out making videos that you should do things related to established franchises to get known before making your own content.

Compare to someone like EddsWorld, his videos are about 3-4 original characters going on adventures that, for the most part, don't directly involve established franchises. His videos can exist if Nintendo did not. Egoraptors' PokeAwesome can not exist without Pokemon, and is dependent on Nintendo existing. Nintendo is not dependent on Egoraptor existing.

TL;DR
Would you know any of the YouTubers above if it was not for you knowing beforehand a video game franchise? No.

Sure, Nintendo needs people buying games to exist, but that is beside the point. YouTubers generate some sales depending on who it is, but they did not make Nintendo successful. The YouTube Let's Player needs Nintendo more than Nintendo needs them.

I don't think Nintendo is being all that greedy taking a small bit of money from a YouTube user for using their content in nether a Review or Parody. They have the legal right to, the same if a TV show used it. YouTube is becoming TV, and has to fallow the same laws any other entertainment medium has to. I can't use a Beatles song in one of my Let's Play videos without paying a licensing fee to Apple/EMI, I can't upload an episode of The Simpsons without licensing it from FOX, why does Nintendo not get to charge for the same thing?
Some of YouTubes claimed videos do happen by mistake, the system is broken and only detects if audio (or i think images) is used and not how it is used. Fair Use applies on YouTube, and the program used for detecting copyrighted material has no way to figure out it is, it is imposable with today's tech. Though if it was not for people on YouTube breaking copyright law, we would not have this broken system.