| General Category > General Discussion |
| Youtubers Upset over Nintendo's New affiliate program |
| << < (7/12) > >> |
| Megatron:
^ You can't compare youtube to TV. Mainly because TV stations are corporations and have shit tons of money for that. Youtube is composed of mainly little people. Sure there are some big dogs, but 90% of the community make very little money off of these videos. And Nintendo taking "a little bit" is an understatement. They are taking 40%. That's huge! Most major game channels/networks, including those backed by other game publishers take around 10%. PLUS, you're forgetting youtube fees. Youtube takes a cut, then Nintendo takes 40% of what's left. So let's say a youtuber pulls in $1 thousand a month. (which is higher than most of them make, since it requires thousands of views to get that high - average CPM or $$$ per thousand views is between $2 and $7 depending on ad type, and other variables such as better rates for more popular channels). From what I understand, Youtube can take UP TO 15%, so let's highball it and say 15%. From the original 1K, that leaves $850. Now subtract the 40% Nintendo takes, and we are down to $$510. So about half of what was made. Then there are gov't taxes - 25% for the average middle class person. So grand total $382.50 per month. Basically a third of what THE YOUTUBER CREATED, for showing 5-10 mins of Link to the Past and 8 mins of Super Mario 64. It's bullshit. |
| FritzWhite:
--- Quote from: Megatron on January 30, 2015, 11:58:21 PM ---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. --- End quote --- --- Quote from: Megatron on January 31, 2015, 01:31:17 AM ---Youtube takes a cut, then Nintendo takes 40% of what's left. So let's say a youtuber pulls in $1 thousand a month. (which is higher than most of them make, since it requires millions of views to get that high). From what I understand, Youtube can take UP TO 15%, so let's highball it and say 15%. From the original 1K, that leaves $850. Now subtract the 40% Nintendo takes, and we are down to $$510. So about half of what was made. Then there are gov't taxes - 25% for the average middle class person. So grand total $382.50 per month. Basically a third of what THE YOUTUBER CREATED, for showing 5-10 mins of Link to the Past and 8 mins of Super Mario 64. It's bullshit. --- End quote --- I don't feel pity for someone that's getting paid less to yak over a video. It's not a real job unless they're a newscaster (and most of them don't really earn their cut but whatever). If they're lucky enough to get paid for creating content people enjoy then good for them, but no, I don't feel bad because someone isn't making a great living putting out a video which mainly features content that isn't theirs in the first place. That's fine that you're uninterested in our opinions on the subject, but the OP's question was what are our thoughts on this. If you want to argue fair use laws and compare it to the definition of whether the content has been significantly altered or its purpose fits under the fair use umbrella that's one thing, but the idea, your opinion, that anyone is entitled to a large portion of profits for uploading videos to a website they didn't create featuring content that isn't theirs because they added original commentary is where we're not seeing eye to eye. One of the major differences between this website making covers and youtubers making videos is that no one here but a few leeches (that, in my opinion, put the TCP website and community at risk) are making money off these covers. As for DRM, it's up to us as consumers to say whether or not that's ok. I feel like things are heading in that direction because other people are gradually becoming more accepting of the idea of renting content rather than purchasing it, but that's the fault of consumers, not the companies. I know I and some others here will be dragged into the digital age kicking and screaming, but we're a pretty small voice relative to the total market. Just the other day I read a topic on another forum about whether gamers miss not having manuals in new games and a lot of people don't give a shit. I think it sucks, but majority rules. |
| larryinc64:
@palmer6strings: Well, the 2 examples you gave are not really what is the problem. Nintendo is not claiming videos with a N64 in the background. Höfner can't get royalties from A Hard Days Night (Movie) because Paul is seen playing it in the movie. Though Höfner does get royalties form Harmonix for its use in The Beatles Rockband, I think, the copyright is listed in the manual. It would be insane if every object in a video had to have royalties paid on it, though I guess it depends on how you use it, I'm not a lawer I just use Google, and none of this YouTube stuff is about that. There is not even a way to automatically detect objects in YouTube video. Most claims are from audio. Lets go to the to the guitar riff thing. So you made a successful song. What if a sitcom that makes thousands in ad revenue and DVD sales used your song in a montage or as background music? You deserve royalties for the song, right? It is your work, and the sitcom is profiting off of it without your permission. Or you made a movie, and someone is charging people to see it, or a slightly modified version of it, and not giving any of the profits they made off of your work to you? Both of the uses are not reviewing or parodying your work, so it is not fair use. In the same way you have to pay royalties for a Led Zeppelin song, why can't Nintendo charge for a Super Mario song? MST3K had to license the copyrighted movies to riff, Why do I not have to license Zelda to riff? YouTube is no longer a small site for home movies, many people use it as their main source or entertainment, instead of TV or movies, and many people are making videos and getting paid ad revenue, the same way ABC gets paid for ads on their TV channel. Many people's jobs are to make YouTube videos in the same way people's jobs are to make TV shows. I don't see why people can't accept that they have to fallow the same rules people on TV and in movies have too. If you don't want FOX claiming your video, don't use content form FOX*. If you don't want WMG claiming your videos, don't use content from WMG*. If you don't want Nintendo claiming your videos, DON'T USE CONTENT FROM NINTENDO*. (*unless it falls under what fair use laws allow.) Just because people on YouTube are not as big as Disney, does not exempt them from copyright law. There are laws that remove the ability to use your right to claim copyright if you knowingly don't. The numers I get from HERE and Boogie2988 video, YouTube's cut is way more than 15%, It seems to be around 30%-50%. I do not have ads so I can't say from personal experiences. YouTube also takes 40% of ad revenue, Nintendo claims 40-or-so percent of the 60% remainder. So its: Youtube - 40% Nintendo - 24% YouTuber - 36% And the program seems to be more guided at Let's Plays, so its more 1-5 hours of A Link To The Past and Super Mario 64. YouTube still picks up 5 minutes of video and slaps a claim on just because that is how the system works. It can pick up 30 seconds of audio. There were problems with companies who support Let's Plays, but YouTube was still putting claims out even though the company was telling then to stop. And there as a HUGE problem with false claims. I have gotten A few from companies claiming I was using something I was not. Or it abused in a way to silence a bad review, this happened to Total Biscuit a few times. The system is very broken. I have tested the claiming tech quite a bit. I used 30 seconds of a Aerosmith song, and distorted it, sped it up: Detected I the vocals of a Linkin Park song, echoed and made softer, overplayed on a MIDI of the song: Not detected Used a second of the song Jump by Van Halen, just the "Jump!" no filters: Not detected Also: My Mario Kart 64, Super Mario 64 Chaos Edition Hack, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, episodes have no claim. Wind Waker HD, and Super Mario World form my stream has been. --- Quote ---"ゼルダの伝説 風のタクト HD サウンドセレクション-10_ゼルダの伝説 風のタクト HD サウンドセレクション-大海原", sound recording administered by: Nintendo "SUPER MARIO WORLD-SUPER MARIO WORLD_24", sound recording administered by: Nintendo --- End quote --- I'm currently making a Super Mario 64 video and trying to sneak a Beatles song in for a joke, using the same method as the Linkon Park song. I'm being a bad boy. I'm sending an email to Nintendo of America asking some questions regarding: Context of how the content is used (Let's Play vs. Review) Content of commentary (Cursing/ Adult Themes/ critique) Status on games not on the list. What to do when claimed contend is in fair use. Anything anyone want me to add? |
| Megatron:
^You're right. This IS an opinion poll. And everyone is entitled to theirs. The problem with opinions, though, is once you open up and reveal your opinion to the world, you are opening yourself to mockery and criticism. Thus is the way of the world, especially on the internet. I'm no mocking, but I do try to belittle every now and then. The problem I have with this thread (from some, not all) isn't that you have an opinion. It's because you pass JUDGMENT on others. That's where I get pretty defensive. A brief bit of backstory about me - by trade I am an LPC (Licensed Professional Counselor) and ABA Specialist (Autism therapy). As part of my job I am a social justice and civil rights advocate, especially for the LGBTQ community. And what I encounter every day in helping pass laws and social reform regarding things like gay marriage, etc. are people who have "opinions" about something they know nothing about and go on to criticize, belittle and pass judgment on others. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are very big parts of that too, as well as censorship - (now don't get me wrong, politically I am pretty much down the middle and am not a zealot either way) but censorship of the internet and the exploitation of big business over small business is a real and growing concern in the US economy. So I get very antsy when I start to see this stuff happening. I don't make youtube videos, but I watch them. I watch enough to know how hard AVGN, Angry Joe, Spoony and others work to delivery quality content. And the miniscule amount of footage used does not justify any claim by Nintendo or anyone else. I am not endorsing piracy or theft, however there are set boundaries as to what is OK and what is not. According to the black and white, Nintendo is close to crossing the line. How you feel about this is up to you, but don't get on a high horse and look down at others for what they have chosen to do. Many of them have done more with their youtube fame than anyone on here will do in a lifetime. Channel Awesome donates thousands every year to various charities. How? Because of these kinds of videos. But the worst part is that Nintendo doesn't need the money. They are doing this because according to them "it's their ball." And want to decide what YOU do with something you paid for. If you don't watch youtube videos, then good for you. You have nothing to do with this situation. If you DO watch them, and still side with Nintendo, you are a hypocrite and spoiled that you think you are entitled to something. And Fritz, you're wrong. Intellectual property does not solely apply to monetary gains. Nintendo could claim their images as copyright and have them taken down. They wouldn't be entitled to any money necessarily (at least without a lawsuit), but they can stop you from giving these away. Remove the data base. And basically blackball any site that tries to reproduce official Nintendo products. |
| Megatron:
So Larry, you seem to be arguing both sides...you want the system in place for lets plays, etc. But don't for the little stuff and short clips...but it doesn't work that way. Nintendo is claiming EVERYTHING. And while they have limited their stuff up front by not doing this wtih Pokemon and others (probably due to having to hsarethe revenue with Game freak and other developers) , the terms of agreement clearly state that Nintendo can alter the deal at any time without warning. This is Vader ordering Lando to take the Princess and the Wookie to his ship all over again! "...this deal is very fair and I'm happy to be a part of it!" Props if you got that joke. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |