General Category > General Discussion
Youtubers Upset over Nintendo's New affiliate program
TDIRunner:
--- Quote from: larryinc64 on January 30, 2015, 09:38:11 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
You forgot my favorite.
Game Sack
;D
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:
--- Quote from: larryinc64 on January 30, 2015, 12:54:21 PM ---
--- Quote from: Megatron on January 30, 2015, 03:44:50 AM ---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)
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.