Nintendo has Illegal Plans for Let's Plays

[Syntaxvgm]

I still don't find any reason why I should monetize my Let's Plays, even if I did it will just get claimed. I'm kind of wondering why only Nintendo gets the blame for this, all companies do it. Also what about the music? A lot of people get third party claims due to music and that isn't something that is so easily disputed.

Music is totally different than games. 

While you would say I'm sort of "pro piracy" directly monetizing someone elses music is wrong. Clear cut. 

You don't get the game by watching someone else play it. 

Games are not like movies or music. 

[Imaginaerum]

Because unless youtube decides to do this on their own, they have no legal right. The have a lot of other issues as a company. They need to check themselves. 

I never heard this illegality when YouTube changed their content ID system a few months ago to bypass anyone in a network.

 

You know what I remember reading? "Oh good now Let's Players have to get real jobs." Rockstar is/has been a jackass when it comes to uploading games, and no one whines about them.

[GamerDad]

Actually Nintendo would win in court that's not really how it works. Also I'm not saying you should pay them I'm saying you have no right to monetary gain from the Let's Play.

You have given no evidence or even a statement to back up your claim. Saying "no" doesn't make an argument and doesn't contribute to discussion. If it isn't how it works, enlighten us, because it is exactly how it works.

 

Even so, you would not be able to create said commentary without Nintendo creating the content thus inquiring some sort of monetary gain for themselves. 

So is every single TV, movie, play, music, food or artisitc critic. Every single review. In fact none of it is possible without Shakespeare. Do we therefore have to pay royalties to his estate for any romance or plot twist? What about language? Where do we pay our royalties to that?

Oh, here's a good one: Your reply in this thread is not possible without Nintendo. Guess you'll have to pay them now too.

[Syntaxvgm]

I never heard this illegality when YouTube changed their content ID system a few months ago to bypass anyone in a network.

 

You know what I remember reading? "Oh good now Let's Players have to get real jobs." Rockstar is/has been a jackass when it comes to uploading games, and no one whines about them.

Well, as much as I hate youtube for that, they are 100% in the clear to do that. It's their content network. You sign to the TOS when you monetize what you make. 

[Syntaxvgm]

You have given no evidence or even a statement to back up your claim. Saying "no" doesn't make an argument and doesn't contribute to discussion. If it isn't how it works, enlighten us, because it is exactly how it works.

 

So is every single TV, movie, play, music, food or artisitc critic. Every single review. In fact none of it is possible without Shakespeare. Do we therefore have to pay royalties to his estate for any romance or plot twist? What about language? Where do we pay our royalties to that?

Oh, here's a good one: Your reply in this thread is not possible without Nintendo. Guess you'll have to pay them now too.

Don't say that. I've seen small websites get cease and desist orders from Warner Music Group for talking about songs. TALKING ABOUT THEM. Not even linking to them. 

Please no jinx. 

[Misanthrope]

This is totally the wrong angle by the way guys: Even if it was in fact Legal for Nintendo to do this and there was no fair use protections at all, they still should allow let's players because it's actually in their best interest to get what amounts to free publicity: Games are made and broken on the back of popular let's players and trendy twitch streams (I haven't used twitch much but I already noticed how a popular streamer can basically bring hundreds of people to watch AND other people to also stream so smaller or older games suddenly get tons of interest)

 

By doing shit like this, Nintendo is basically assuring that they will be completely left behind gaming culture who is, for better or worst, dictating how game advertisement and publicity will work for now on. Companies can either be smart about it and sponsor and promote popular let's players, or stubbornly attempt to grab their cash to ensure not even dedicated fans will ever cover Nintendo games, something that's already a visible trend that will only get exponentially worst.

 

And then Iwatta wonders why he can't sell a single fucking Wii U...

[RelentlessAF]

You have given no evidence or even a statement to back up your claim. Saying "no" doesn't make an argument and doesn't contribute to discussion. If it isn't how it works, enlighten us, because it is exactly how it works.

*Sigh* Because large corporations have more power, more lawyers, more loopholes etc... etc... and on top of that most Judges and Law makers do not really understand the internet, what it is and so on. So if you took Nintendo to court they would use their power to win or the very least pay you a small settlement outside of court. If it actually worked that way YouTube COULD tell Nintendo no, but if they do they will get sued, and Nintendo will win.

 

EDIT: And to further that, most large corporations are lobbyists for American lawmakers and have a larger say and less eyes on them. American Politics 101.

[Imaginaerum]

Well, as much as I hate youtube for that, they are 100% in the clear to do that. It's their content network. You sign to the TOS when you monetize what you make. 

Who was making the ID claims? Not YouTube, but music and game companies. Rights owners. Some companies that had nothing to do with the content in question.

 

Why is this illegal for Nintendo but 100% in the clear for everyone else? Nintendo is trying to give money back now, they aren't just taking it all. What part of this is illegal if it's in the TOS?

[GamerDad]

I still don't find any reason why I should monetize my Let's Plays, even if I did it will just get claimed. I'm kind of wondering why only Nintendo gets the blame for this, all companies do it. Also what about the music? A lot of people get third party claims due to music and that isn't something that is so easily disputed.

You fail to grasp the concept of derivitve work vs original work.

Uploading music that isn't yours is illegal. Singing the song yourself and uploading it is - but not metizeable because you don't own the lyrics or the instrumental arrangement. However, changing both just a tiny bit (i.e. a parody like the thousands of Minecraft music videos) is monetize-able - they are unique derivative works.

Let'sPlays are the same. They are unique the instant the game is played because the game doesn't work without you playing it. You are therefore a contributor to that very original work. It's like buying a CD and finding out you're the lead singer of that song - it won't work unless you sing and as lead singer, you have the right to make money off your performance. The music studio got its share of your income when you bought the CD.

[Imaginaerum]

*Sigh* Because large corporations have more power, more lawyers, more loopholes etc... etc... and on top of that most Judges and Law makers do not really understand the internet, what it is and so on. So if you took Nintendo to court they would use their power to win or the very least pay you a small settlement outside of court. If it actually worked that way YouTube COULD tell Nintendo no, but if they do they will get sued, and Nintendo will win.

Google has a lot lot lot lot lot more money than Nintendo.

They have a lot lot lot lot lot more lawsuits going on than Nintendo (patents, NSA, government and privacy).

You're telling me Google would lose to Nintendo if they fought in a court?

[RelentlessAF]

So is every single TV, movie, play, music, food or artisitc critic. Every single review. In fact none of it is possible without Shakespeare. Do we therefore have to pay royalties to his estate for any romance or plot twist? What about language? Where do we pay our royalties to that?

Oh, here's a good one: Your reply in this thread is not possible without Nintendo. Guess you'll have to pay them now too.

You clearly didn't comprehend what I said, if you wish to make money using a product they created than they deserve a "slice of the pie" per say. I'm not saying they should automatically be payed constantly but they do need to be payed for their work in some way to begin with. Secondly this is direct communication. Communication is freedom of speech and does not require payment of any sort as it's not owned by anyone. We are also technically paying our ISP's for the right to do this and with the latest FCC changes they could easily say you have to pay them for every forum post you make.

[Vitalius]

What part of this is illegal if it's in the TOS?

It's not in the TOS?

It's illegal for everyone else, but Nintendo is trying to make a program that actively uses this behavior which will lead to it being accepted. That is horrible. People accepting their (lawfully given) rights being taken away is terrible. Nintendo may be offering some money back, but only after they effectively stole it all. Now they are offering a peace offering so they can keep stealing some of your money instead of all of it. 

That's effectively what's happening here and why we are focusing on Nintendo even though many other companies take all the money.

 

You clearly didn't comprehend what I said, if you wish to make money using a product they created than they deserve a "slice of the pie" per say. I'm not saying they should automatically be payed constantly but they do need to be payed for their work in some way to begin with. Secondly this is direct communication. Communication is freedom of speech and does not require payment of any sort as it's not owned by anyone. We are also technically paying our ISP's for the right to do this and with the latest FCC changes they could easily say you have to pay them for every forum post you make.

No. We aren't paying our ISPs for the right to do this. We are paying our ISPs for the ability to do this. To communicate is free. To communicate over the internet only requires resources. Which we could obtain ourselves if we had the money and time, but instead, we pay the ISPs to deal with that for us. That's an important distinction. 

They got paid when we bought the game. That's where their income from content creators who do Let's Plays should end considering the Copyright laws.

[RelentlessAF]

You fail to grasp the concept of derivitve work vs original work.

Uploading music that isn't yours is illegal. Singing the song yourself and uploading it is - but not metizeable because you don't own the lyrics or the instrumental arrangement. However, changing both just a tiny bit (i.e. a parody like the thousands of Minecraft music videos) is monetize-able - they are unique derivative works.

Let'sPlays are the same. They are unique the instant the game is played because the game doesn't work without you playing it. You are therefore a contributor to that very original work. It's like buying a CD and finding out you're the lead singer of that song - it won't work unless you sing and as lead singer, you have the right to make money off your performance. The music studio got its share of your income when you bought the CD.

In the copyright infringement video created by YouTube, they show an example of the very thing you talk about, uploading the song is not legal. Neither is a cover (Your video can be removed by the artist monetized or not), a parody is not technically the same song it's your own created song. You used the other song as a reference but they are two different things. Different lyrics and a lot of the time a different pitch or melody. Which in fact is a different song.

[GamerDad]

Nintendo is trying to give money back now, they aren't just taking it all. What part of this is illegal if it's in the TOS?

 Because it isn't in the TOS, this is an affiliate program planned by Nintendo, not Youtube. Youtube's TOS are also not the law. The law says otherwise than Yotube's TOS.

The problem is it takes a lawsuit to invalidate those TOS that are either too weak or contravene the law. That means it takes money.

As GingerbreadPK pointed out, that means spending a lot of money fighting a broken system but those hurdles are in place to wear you down. The LAW says it is illegal and Nintendo WILL lose - but you have to keep from being worn down.

Signing a settlement doesn't make it legal and doesn't make Nintendo right. It makes you worn out.

[RelentlessAF]

No. We aren't paying our ISPs for the right to do this. We are paying our ISPs for the ability to do this. To communicate is free. To communicate over the internet only requires resources. That's an important distinction. 

They got paid when we bought the game. That's where their income from content creators who do Let's Plays should end.

Communication over the internet is still what I was talking about which the ISP's could in fact charge you for doing it as it uses their resources and time.

[Misanthrope]

You clearly didn't comprehend what I said, if you wish to make money using a product they created than they deserve a "slice of the pie" per say. I'm not saying they should automatically be payed constantly but they do need to be payed for their work in some way to begin with. 

 

They already are: This is tremendous publicity. No other marketing medium can assure you upwards of 10 million people who are your exact target audience by a guy that basically charges you this much for his advertisement: 0

 

So what if the guy makes 1 or 2 grand on secondary advertisement? If Nintendo was to get their heads out of their asses they would see it as 2000 deducted from the 15 or 20 grand that this publicity can be valued at if you were to try other mediums like TV or not as precisely targeted add campaigns on the web. But like the idiots they are, they rather have a bite out of those 2000 bucks instead, making sure they'll piss off the let's player who just wont cover your games anymore.

[RelentlessAF]

 Because it isn't in the TOS, -snip-

Apart of the terms of service is agreeing to them being allowed to remove your videos if they wish. Using someones service has different rules than public domain. Just as Facebook could ban you for saying something they don't like. As long as you agreed to them banning you from their service when you signed up they may. It may be accessible easily but websites are not public domain and have different rules. Esspecially if they offer a service like FaceBook or youTube.

[Vitalius]

Communication over the internet is still what I was talking about which the ISP's could in fact charge you for doing it as it uses their resources and time.

They do charge us for it? 

I think you don't understand my point. Saying we pay for the right to do this implies that the ISPs own the internet. That they make the rules and laws regarding it. Which is incorrect. Yes, we pay them to allow us to do this using their resources, but not for the right to do this. A right and an ability are two different things.

Now, if you meant "we pay for the right to use their resources to do this", then you are right, since we are in a contract with our ISPs to do this. But that's different from what was said.

[Imaginaerum]

It's not in the TOS?

The TOS say to monetize what you're making. No one made the game but Nintendo, and while I don't agree with disabling monetization for a media that isn't given to the viewer by watching a video I don't see how it's illegal if Nintendo (or anyone else) really wanted tod o this.

 

Again I wonder why no one made a huge deal about the illegality of it when YouTube changed their Content ID system a few months ago.

[RelentlessAF]

They already are: This is tremendous publicity. No other marketing medium can assure you upwards of 10 million people who are your exact target audience by a guy that basically charges you this much for his advertisement: 0

 

So what if the guy makes 1 or 2 grand on secondary advertisement? If Nintendo was to get their heads out of their asses they would see it as 2000 deducted from the 15 or 20 grand that this publicity can be valued at if you were to try other mediums like TV or not as precisely targeted add campaigns on the web. But like the idiots they are, they rather have a bite out of those 2000 bucks instead, making sure they'll piss off the let's player who just wont cover your games anymore.

I didn't say what they were doing was intelligent. A lot of them time people who create things can be very sensitive about their work and feel violated when someone exploits it. Some people don't care, some do. I personally would not but I am not Nintendo.

[GamerDad]

a parody is not technically the same song it's your own created song.

A Let's Play is the same. Your SKILL is unique and different from the game's CPU and that of every single other human on earth. Again, do football players pay the NFL so they can play football? No, they don't, yet football players are impossible without the game rules, which are owned by the NFL in exactly the same way a Let's Players are impossible without the game rules owned by Nintendo. The same is true for the football itself and the uniform and equipment (assets). The differentiator is the SKILL of the player which cannot be copyrighted or owner by the NFl or Nintendo and in fact, is paid for by the NFL in the form of MILLIONS of dollars.

if anything, Nintendo should be paying Let's Players, not the other way around.

[Misanthrope]

As GingerbreadPK pointed out, that means spending a lot of money fighting a broken system but those hurdles are in place to wear you down. The LAW says it is illegal and Nintendo WILL lose - but you have to keep from being worn down.

 

Even though they've been notoriously slow and mild to response, most youtubers and twitch partners actually belong to large networks who HAVE the means to take Nintendo to court and if they get together, even win. With enough pressure from their clients, the youtubers, they will have no choice but to go after Nintendo, so it's not as hopeless as a little ant vs an elefant.

[RelentlessAF]

They do charge us for it? 

I think you don't understand my point. Saying we pay for the right to do this implies that the ISPs own the internet. That they make the rules and laws regarding it. Which is incorrect. Yes, we pay them to allow us to do this using their resources, but not for the right to do this. A right and an ability are two different things.

Not true, as the ISP's do believe they own the internet and act as if they do. What I meant was they could charge you an additional fee every time you make a forum post or send and IM just because you used a bit more of their resources which is exactly what the new law is about. A restricted internet and not making it an open platform.

[RelentlessAF]

A Let's Play is the same. Your SKILL is unique and different from the game's CPU and that of every single other human on earth. Again, do football players pay the NFL so they can play football? No, they don't, yet football players are impossible without the game rules, which are owned by the NFL in exactly the same way a Let's Players are impossible without the game rules owned by Nintendo. The same is true for the football itself and the uniform and equipment (assets). The differentiator is the SKILL of the player which cannot be copyrighted or owner by the NFl or Nintendo and in fact, is paid for by the NFL in the form of MILLIONS of dollars.

if anything, Nintendo should be paying Let's Players, not the other way around.

The NFL didn't create the sport though, they are a host to allow people to find others to play the sport with. The ESEA doesn't own Counter-Strike. They just host the tournaments.

[Misanthrope]

I didn't say what they were doing was intelligent. A lot of them time people who create things can be very sensitive about their work and feel violated when someone exploits it. Some people don't care, some do. I personally would not but I am not Nintendo.

 

Well those people shouldn't be making business decisions, that's the problem with Nintendo they listen to nobody even when it's on their best interest. Just think about this: Not even one of the largest companies in the world, Apple, has been able to stop the infringement on their products even though they actually (allegedly) have valid patents. You can't be involved in creative works and have that much of a thin skin.