The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => Hobbies and Recreation => Gamers Zone => Topic started by: pokeplayer984 on May 16, 2013, 08:19:16 AM
-
Jerk move, Nintendo! Jerk move! -_-
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/...-YouTube-Videos (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124066-Nintendo-Suddenly-Claims-Ownership-Of-Many-YouTube-Videos)
Time for me to convince all my favorites to start using a website and several different video platforms.
This will be fun. :)
-
Uff, better stop my let's play of an old pokemon game.
But honestly, what are they targeting exactly? Are they only targeting new games or are they targeting those from before 1990 as well ? It's not really clear from the article.
-
^^From what I can gather, it seems to be newer games. Mainly ones on the Wii, WiiU and 3DS.
If there's certain older games they are targeting, I'm make sure to point them out if I find anything.
So, it's looking like your older game of Pokemon is safe for now. However, I'll let you know if that changes. :)
-
Right.
I agree that it is a bad move. As if they don't earn enough already. We letsplayers get less and less chances to make it out there with all the copyright claims.
-
Nintendo does kind of have the right to do this. At the same time though, this is a bit of a double edged sword. In my opinion, if you're doing Let's Plays just for fun then it should be alright. But if you're making money from this stuff, I'm sorry but you deserve to be taken down. You're making money off someone else's work. If I found someone was doing something like this with something I published, I'd make sure they were taken down too, or at the very least strike a deal with them(50/50).
Let's Players may be upset about this but like it or not, it's Nintendo's property and they can choose what to do with it.
-
I don't agree with you, Animeboye.
Nintendo owns the game, but letsplayers are not selling the game illegally. They show players what the game is like. They put their own commentary on it. They may even give it a decent review. A game is made for one reason: to be played. (For the company: to earn money). Robbing the original reason from us letsplayers, just to suit their own reasons, is pretty bad. I've always been a person who prefers watching someone else play over having myself play games, since I'm pretty bad at it. If someone is entertaining enough and plays well enough to make me watch their videos, I'll gladly support that person by watching ads which give them ad revenue. Hopefully they will continue making their letsplays so that I can enjoy them.
Aye, it's a double edged sword, but nintendo fails to see the 2nd edge completely.
-
That's fine if you don't agree with me but I standby what I said.
Look, if Nintendo demands ad revenue then it's within their rights to do so. It's their property. And I never said Let's Players are selling the game illegally but they are making money off someone else's work while the person in question doesn't receive a single amount of the cut. If someone was selling copies of my novel and/or comic and I wasn't receiving a cut of the money then I'd put my foot down about it too, just like Nintendo's doing.
You don't have to like what they're doing but as someone who(although not wanting to make games) plans to enter into the entertainment industry someday, I can understand where Nintendo is coming from.
-
Animeboye, by your logic, everyone on That Guy With the Glasses, The Escapist, ScrewAttack and others are committing wrong by not allowing publishers to earn from their reviews.
Also, no, there is no denying this. Doing so would only prove hypocritical because the videos at those sites fall under the same rights as Let's Plays do. Fair Use protection under educational commentary.
Fair Use falls under more than whether or not one makes money off of it. In fact, it's rarely the big deciding factor in fair use cases that are taken to court. To help prove my point, let's look at the rules of Fair Use and how they relate to Let's Plays.
Note: Info in quotes taken from fairusetube.org
FACTOR 1: THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTER OF THE USE
This factor considers whether the use helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public. The defendant must show how a use either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. The more transformative the use, the more likely it is to be fair, whereas if defendant merely reproduces plaintiff's work without putting it to a transformative use, the less likely this use will be held to be fair. Further, the more commercial defendant's use, the less likely such use will be fair.
Sure, one would argue that just talking over a game while it's being played is hardly considered transformative. However, when it comes to commentary, it's more on what the person is talking about that is important. Are they teaching new players how to get through a level or beat a boss? Are they pointing out flaws in a bad game? Are they making bad jokes or making stupid mistakes that make it more entertaining? As such, it can be educational to the viewer, or even be funny, thus being a parody. Both of which are considered transformative.
On top of this, one can argue that playing a game and watching someone play a game are two different experiences. This small detail would make the simple act of watching someone play rule in favor of being transformative.
Now even though some earn money off of this and it would hurt their case, remember that it is not the big deciding factor.
FACTOR 2: THE NATURE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK
The more creative, and less purely factual, the copyrighted work, the stronger its protection. In order to prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain, facts and ideas are separate from copyright?only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection. Second, if a copyrighted work is unpublished, it will be harder to establish that defendant's use of it was fair. See Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 650 F. Supp. 413 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), and in New Era Publications Int'l v. Henry Holt & Co., 695 F. Supp. 1493 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). One commentator noted that "the original author's interest in controlling the circumstances of the first public revelation of his work, and his right, if he so chooses, [is to not] publish at all." While some argue that legal protection of unpublished works should come from the law of privacy rather than the law of copyright, Congress amended the Fair Use doctrine to explicitly note, "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
Or to make a long story short, the question here is "Is the copyrighted work published by the company at hand?". Since many Let's Players tend to point out who it is that created the game they are commenting on, this small detail tends to rule in favor of the Let's Player. Without this simple crediting, they'd be in trouble.
FACTOR 3: THE AMOUNT AND SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE PORTION DEFENDANT USED
In general, the less of the copyrighted work that is used, the more likely the use will be considered fair. If, however, the defendant copied nearly all of, or the heart of, the copyrighted work, his or her use is less likely to be considered fair. See Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985).
Yes, they play through the whole game, even going as far as 100% completion. They show it all step by step. It is indeed what separates review from commentary, as a review tends to use a limited amount of the material to make their points. A commentary of a game on the other hand, tends to use every bit of the footage.
However, even though this does hurt their case, it's not the big deciding factor in the end.
FACTOR 4: THE EFFECT OF DEFENDANT'S USE ON THE POTENTIAL MARKET OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK
This factor is generally held to be the most important factor. See Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985). This factor considers the effect that the defendant's use has on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work. The court will consider whether the use is a direct market substitute for the original work. The court may also consider whether harm to a potential market exists. The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 451 (1984). It is important to note that courts recognize that some market harm may come from fair uses such as parodies or negative reviews, but that such market harm does not militate against a finding of fair use.
THIS is the big one. Does it help or hinder in getting the word out about someone's work? Sure, negative commentary happens all the time, but that doesn't seem to stop an audience from learning more about it and giving advice to the company at hand on how to do better with their next project.
Positive or negative, commentary gives a product more attention. Let's Plays have a huge advantage on this one.
So, it stands to say that there is a good chance that in court, Let's Plays would fall under Fair Use, thus being protected from problems like these.
There is no two ways about it. Whether or not a Let's Play makes money, it is protected under Fair Use. As such, by effectively rerouting where the funds of the Let's Player go, Nintendo is the one committing theft in this case. Not the other way around.
Plus, it just creates bad PR for Nintendo to do this. Fans will boycott, thus making Nintendo realize that they made a bad move on their part.
Just watch. This won't last.
-
I agree with Animeboye, and I'll explain why below.
I don't agree with you, Animeboye.
Nintendo owns the game, but letsplayers are not selling the game illegally. They show players what the game is like. They put their own commentary on it. They may even give it a decent review. A game is made for one reason: to be played. (For the company: to earn money). Robbing the original reason from us letsplayers, just to suit their own reasons, is pretty bad.
This is the best shot the anti-Nintendo group has; claiming Let's Plays are review. Thus it would fall under the 'fair use (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)' law which states that "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment" are protected. The problem comes in when you consider that this isn't merely 'excerpts'; in some cases the entire video game may be displayed in one of these Let's Plays. It gets murky when you factor in that many Let's plays are just a voice superimposed over the content; Rifftrax (humorous commentaries of copyrighted films) provides an example of precedence in this case when lawyers informed him he could not possibly review copyrighted content in this way:
The movies chosen for Mystery Science Theater 3000 were predominantly low-budget B-movies because the show itself was low-budget and producers could only afford films with expired copyright or had otherwise cheap licenses. The idea of RiffTrax came about after Mystery Science Theater 3000 was canceled and Nelson had researched and consulted a lawyer about the possibility of directly releasing DVDs of films with the commentaries included. But Nelson realized this initial idea was not feasible since he would be "sued out of existence." Instead, the best way to distribute the commentaries would be to sell them independently of the films, to avoid having to obtain the rights to distribute the movies themselves. There would be no legal or monetary restrictions to prevent Nelson from producing them, though viewers would have to provide the movies themselves.
As more original content is included and a lesser percentage of the work is actually shown, the chance of being able to declare 'fair use' under review gets better; The Nostalgia Critic successfully strong-armed (http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/07/22/the-nostalgia-critic-vs-tommy-wiseau-debacle/) Tommy Wiseau (director of The Room into letting his post his review of The Room for those very reasons.
Of course, the Rifftrax and Nostalgia Critic examples are not legal precedence because neither actually reached a courtroom; they were settled outside of court. But "The Transformative Factor (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html)", which is everything I've described up to now, is part of law, and crucial to this question of who is right. To quote:
The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the “heart” of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it would probably not be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words “I can’t get no satisfaction” from the song “Satisfaction.”
When you take the entirety of a video game, you are clearly on the losing side of 'more vs. less'.
Mumbling, you brought up another important point, though I'm not sure you meant to:
I've always been a person who prefers watching someone else play over having myself play games, since I'm pretty bad at it. If someone is entertaining enough and plays well enough to make me watch their videos, I'll gladly support that person by watching ads which give them ad revenue. Hopefully they will continue making their letsplays so that I can enjoy them.
This potentially lost Nintendo your sale, because your desire to play the game was sated by an online Let's Play. Through it you were potentially able to see every second of the gameplay down to the final cutscene, and Nintendo earned nothing, even when the work was entirely their own except for a single invisible voice superimposed over it. In such cases I'm forced to agree with Animeboye that Nintendo is within their rights to demand monetary compensation for your viewing of their video. Once you reach something incredibly user-generated such as this review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aip2aIt0ROM), for example, I'd argue any video game company is less clearly within their rights.
Frankly part of me suspects that a large chunk of this debate centers around "Nintendo has so much money and is a giant powerhouse; how dare they intrude upon the poor individual youtubers just to scrounge up their few cents of ad revenue." But this is the wrong attitude. Copyright infringement should not be tolerated simply because the one being infringed upon is a wealthy company.
Finally let me note that Nintendo is actually being nice by not removing the videos, as they have a right to do by what they are claiming. Instead, they found a way to allow the videos to stay up while still getting compensation for them, which actually is much more of a win/win than if they demanded the videos be taken down (like many other companies, such as Hasbro and Universal, have done.)
EDIT: Wow pokeplayer, you posted a huge thing while I was writing this. Let me read it, and if I don't cover some of your points, I'll draft a response later tomorrow.
-
You brought up a good point, LB&T. However, I would like to refer back to my past as an 8 year old. I did not own a gaming computer nor any console, and wasn't very well versed in the gaming world. In other words I wasn't a very good player. Whenever I would visit a friend, I loved to watch him or her play the game, rather than getting involved myself. I don't think Nintendo has lost a potential buyer in me, simply because I wouldn't have bought the game in the first place.
Then now I'd like to bring up a more recent example. I bought the game Don't Starve for my birthday after seeing Guardsman Bob (a streamer) play it online. I had heard of the game before but had never seen the footage. The footage (with his commentary :p) was what convinced me to buy a game I probably wouldn't have heard of again in the future.
Not everyone wants to play games, some games are meant only to be played by certain people. Take horror games for example. I'm a complete wuss when it comes to that, but when I see others play I will be just as involved. I'd never play it myself, though. I doubt the gaming industry misses out on sales because of let's plays, I think it increases their sale. There are few gamers who watch a great game online and never think of buying the game afterwards.
With the exception of pirates of course, but this topic is talking about something else.
-
On the topic of pirates, there was an interesting article about the buying habits of pirates vs non-pirates. I'll just post a link since I'd have a hard time trying to summarize it myself: http://torrentfreak.com/0-more-on-content-...nsumers-130510/ (http://torrentfreak.com/0-more-on-content-than-honest-consumers-130510/)
Now as for the discussion of Let's Plays, reviews, etc, there is something I don't think anyone has brought up yet. For some people doing this kind of stuff, it's the only source of income they have. Linkara explains it rather well in one of his videos. Doing reviews weekly, writing scripts, etc, takes so much effort that getting a part time job would be hard. So for many who are literally doing this stuff for a living, having the revenue go to another source is devastating.
And let me bring something else up: why should Nintendo constantly get revenue for games it already sold? Why should a company get money for a game that sold millions already? What exactly did they do to deserve to get more money than they already made on a product? I'd understand if it was brand new, but if the game is a few years old, they already likely made at least some thousands of dollars on it, maybe millions.
When a company sells you a product, according to capitalism, they lose all ownership of that copy of the product, and it becomes solely your product. You own it now, not them. You have the right to do whatever you want to it. If you want to sell it, you can. But lately, gaming companies are trying to stop used game sales so they can milk out even more money, and that is harmful to the gaming community, especially those who cannot afford to buy brand new games costing $60, $70.
With Let's Plays and commentaries, they are free advertisement. Just them existing would cause people to want to try those games themselves. Nintendo would already be getting more money because if someone watches someone do a Let's Play of one of their games, if it interests them enough, they will want to buy it and play it themselves. However, Nintendo wants to make money off of these free advertisements, which is nothing short of greedy. They are making millions of dollars on these games and consoles that they sell, and yet they want to milk out the small amount of money LPers and such make (miniscule compared to what Nintendo makes).
I agree with Pokeplayer that such an action will be harmful to Nintendo. While I agree that Nintendo has a lot of power over these products, there is a line that, when crossed, would be going too far. And in this case, Nintendo wanting to absorb the small wage some LPers and commentators get, despite making millions of dollars already, is one such case of crossing the line.
-
Nintendo may own the content in the video, but they did not produce the video itself. They do not own the commentary, they did not edit the video, they did not record it or tell the uploader what to say. Placing ads on a video containing your content or taking partial ad revenue is one thing, but claiming complete ownership of one you did not make is another. It's reverse thinking all around.
Unless Iris works for Nintendo, she is entitled to her own commentary and the side money she seeks to make off of it, just as much as the viewer shows interest in her videos for that particular reason.
The retsupurae duo made a video about this
http://youtu.be/JYplcqazWCA?t=13m9s (http://youtu.be/JYplcqazWCA?t=13m9s)
-
Nintendo may own the content in the video, but they did not produce the video itself. They do not own the commentary, they did not edit the video, they did not record it or tell the uploader what to say. Placing ads on a video containing your content or taking partial ad revenue is one thing, but claiming complete ownership of one you did not make is another. It's reverse thinking all around.
Unless Iris works for Nintendo, she is entitled to her own commentary and the side money she seeks to make off of it, just as much as the viewer shows interest in her videos for that particular reason.
The retsupurae duo made a video about this
http://youtu.be/JYplcqazWCA?t=13m9s (http://youtu.be/JYplcqazWCA?t=13m9s)
That video brings up most of my arguments in favor of Nintendo:
1) They are not taking the videos down; they're trying to find a middle ground where these videos can still stay up. Since Youtube is siding with Nintendo, Nintendo could have nuked Iris and every other LP'er videos, but they didn't. You can still make videos and make fans, you just can't make money.
2) Nintendo has stated that they're only going to target LPs with a significant amount of gameplay. As I said; when a video series contains 100% of a Nintendo game with just someone's voice put over it, I find it hard to claim that that person produced the majority of the video. Nintendo designed sprites, game balance, marketing, audio, video, and the Youtuber simply played it and talked through a mic.
3) The 23-minute mark brings up a great point: you cannot prove that LPs contribute to Nintendo's sales. You can claim that happens, but I can equally claim that LPs lower sales because people watch everything in the game on Youtube, and now don't feel the need to play the game because they've seen all the cutscenes and the ending. Neither of us have evidence that isn't anecdotal. And anecdotal evidence is not supported in any American court of law.
-
I did share the video, but I didn't agree with everything they said. My opinions:
1) They are not taking the videos down; they're trying to find a middle ground where these videos can still stay up. Since Youtube is siding with Nintendo, Nintendo could have nuked Iris and every other LP'er videos, but they didn't. You can still make videos and make fans, you just can't make money.
Yes, which means not making money off of your commentary, which is the purpose behind the video. Now Nintendo will be making money off of other peoples commentary and personality, which is even more sketchy. This is a two sided thing.
2) Nintendo has stated that they're only going to target LPs with a significant amount of gameplay. As I said; when a video series contains 100% of a Nintendo game with just someone's voice put over it, I find it hard to claim that that person produced the majority of the video. Nintendo designed sprites, game balance, marketing, audio, video, and the Youtuber simply played it and talked through a mic.
I can agree with this if the commentary and editing is of less to no substantial quality. But who said they made the game? They made the video. Video games are not movies. Someone could play the game a lot differently than someone else and have different opinions about it, that is the work of the video maker, and it is their job to make it entertaining for the video. Nintendo is not the one directing the video maker.
Ever watched GMod videos? Source filmmaker videos? They're all almost entirely different for a reason. Valve made the engine for the filmmakers, but they did not produce the videos made around their software.
3) The 23-minute mark brings up a great point: you cannot prove that LPs contribute to Nintendo's sales.
Thats true for a lot advertising, isn't it? Considering Youtube uploads of a game serve the same purpose of a commercial: To spread awareness about the game. Someone with 3 million viewers uploading a positive video about a game will surely get people interested in it, the same as a popular TV commercial would, just with more context and explanation for the game. What I can say is, a few videos have actually made me buy some games, and my word is solid proof of that. Who is anyone to tell me I'm wrong there?
I can equally claim that LPs lower sales because people watch everything in the game on Youtube, and now don't feel the need to play the game because they've seen all the cutscenes and the ending.
Chances are those people wouldn't have bought the game anyway if they did not want to experience that game for themself. Again: Video games are not movies. I know the ending to MGS4, and I still want to buy it and play it for myself, as compared to me watching a whole movie for free over youtube in terrible quality and never thinking of it again.
And anecdotal evidence is not supported in any American court of law.
That is a different subject entirely that I will not talk about.
-
Oh boy! Love this guy's point of view on the whole thing.
Note: 34 minute video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yX4io2O4EI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yX4io2O4EI)
In my eyes, either this will lead to so much backlash that Nintendo will back off, or that it will be taken to court and Nintendo will lose.
Either way, we win and it just won't last. :)
-
I'll just never understand for the life of me why people think that profiting off of someone else's hard work should be allowed. In no other forms of entertainment is this accepted. You can't do it with movies, music, anime, books, tv shows, comics, etc. so why should it be okay to do it with games? What makes Let's Players so special that they should be immune to rules that everyone else has to follow?
I disagree with a lot of what Nintendo does these days but this is something I'm 100% behind them on. These games are their property. Why should somebody else be able to make money off their work without their consent?
-
This is actually still very relevant. Recently videos by youtuber Angry Joe got removed by Nintendo (see video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz09W2Z6OOU) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz09W2Z6OOU)). I have personally never had any issues with my Nintendo videos, and I know a rather big youtuber Jwittz whose entire channel is nintendo-based. The same goes for AntDude92, all Nintendo reviews. I'm not sure when Nintendo videos get removed, the criteria seems very odd. Either way, splitting the revenue would be the fairest thing to do, considering people spend a lot of time on editing videos and for some people it is their only source of income.
-
If these Let's Players are using this as their only source of income, then I still have no pity for them. The job market is tough and fickle. I understand that 100%. But that's still no excuse to profit off someone else's creations. If I tried to make a living off of going to the theater, recording a movie on my phone, and then adding commentary to it, should that be allowed? I mean, I took the effort of buying the ticket and sitting down in my seat for an hour and a half then I had to go home and edit the video so why shouldn't I get that money I so richly deserve?
I wonder if any of these Let's Players have thought about what they're going to do once the Let's Play fad ends. Because let's face it: Let's Plays won't last forever. They're going to have to get actual jobs or find some other way of making money on the Internet. And say they did go for the former. It would take a lot of convincing to get a potential employer to even consider looking at their resumes. An employer isn't going to look at playing video games on Youtube as an actual job no matter how much they protest that it is.
-
I will never understand the mindset of "Well they didn't make the games so they shouldn't be allowed to make money off of them!". This argument falls flat on its face when you consider what this actually alludes to.
If people are not allowed to make videos of games and make money on the grounds that they didn't make the game, then doesn't this mean that all garage sales should be illegal? Those people didn't make those things; what right do they have to sell them? And houses, too. That family didn't make the house themself; they bought it from someone else. What right do they have to sell it again? How dare these people get money for things that they didn't make themselves?
Yeah, I got a little sarcastic there, but I wanted to drive the point home a little. When it comes to almost everything else (houses, bedding, cars, etc), no one seems to care if they are sold and resold, or any other way to make money off of them (such as turning them into a form of art).
But somehow, video games (and a few other things) are different. I just...don't get it. It makes no sense.
And before you say "oh they worked really hard on that game!", I hope you're not implying that building a house or making an electronic or making a shirt is easy. Because it's not. I'm not saying that making a game takes no effort (it obviously does), but in the end, the game companies had made their money off of that copy of the game. They sell millions of copies every day. They're fine.
To have video game companies claim money on a game they already sold a copy on would be like having a garage sale and then driving all around and giving the money to the people who made the items. I don't see anyone vouching for that, so I fail to see why video games should be different.
-
How do you compare someone's copyrighted material to a garage sale? Apples and oranges.
Simply put, like I said before, Let's Players shouldn't be making money off these games because they didn't make them. It's not their property. Those aren't their characters, settings, stories, etc. When you buy a video game, you're just buying the right to use a copy of said game. That doesn't mean you get the copyright to it.
Let's say I started a spinoff of Let's Plays called Let's Watch where I watch a movie and commentate over it. And of course I make it so I get money from my Let's Watches. Should that be allowed? Do you think directors like say, Christopher Nolan would be cool with me profiting off something they created? Or do you think they'd try to put a stop to it? But why should they? I already paid for the movie. Why shouldn't I be allowed to use it as I see fit?
Because even though I own a copy of the movie, I don't own the copyright to it.
You compare this to someone buying/selling a house. I'm sorry but that's really stretching. You can't copyright a house so when someone purchases a house, they can do whatever they want with it. That becomes their property. Gaming is not anywhere close to being the same. You don't get the rights to those characters or anything else on the disc.
Let me ask you something, DarkHououmon: if you made something, not necessarily a video game, and you found out that someone was profiting off of it, how would you feel? Be honest with me. Would you feel good knowing someone was making money off of your work? Do you think other forms of entertainment should allow people to do whatever they want with their works?
-
Firstly, I know that Nintendo lagally can do this. Under current law.
One thing to realize is most of the industry is for letting youtubers profit from making videos of their games. Microsoft is for it, as well as minecraft (I know microsoft bought out Mojang, but they were for it before then.) Lot of indie developers allow it, because they realize it creates a lot of ad revenue. Many of them would have never been noticed if there wasn't videos being made about them, getting people's eyes on them.
Nintendo's is also flagging reviews of their games for getting revenue, like what's already been said for Angry Joe. Critical analysis of products is protected. Why wouldn't it be, as it would create a weird situation where someone could put up any product they wanted, no matter how bad, and other people couldn't review it, informing the public before they make a purchase. I repeat. Nintendo legally owns footage of their own game, but they can not own someone else's critical analysis of their work. That is protected under free speech, and this is Nintendo stepping out of their bounds.
There's been cases of Nintendo flagging hour long talk discussion videos, because they showed a 30 second trailer of one of their games in it, taking all the revenue from the entire video.
Now, one thing, Nintendo has no right to take all the revenue for a video when the part that pertains to them is only a small fraction of the total video. This is them stepping out of their bounds for sure. Taking revenue that doesn't even legally belong to them, as it's not even pertaining to them.
Second, they are flagging videos for showing trailers. Promotional material. Specially made footage that the company wants as many people to see as possible. How can they take revenue when the video maker is essentially showing an ad for a Nintendo game? That's really what a trailer is. An advertizement. This is promotional material that Nintendo sends out to media outlets, telling them to spread the word about their games. How can anyone be incentivized to put up videos, that are really advertizing for Nintendo, when they will get nothing out of it. Nintendo will flag it, and take the money for themselves.
Nintendo can do this legally, yes, but there's been many cases of them stepping out of bounds, and taking revenue that doesn't even legally belong to them, because the flagging process of videos is so out-dated and archaic.
I hope Nintendo realizes that by doing this, they are going to have to do all of the advertizing for their games themselves. They are already starting to do this, as evidenced by their "Nintendo Directs" they've been doing, instead of taking the traditional media outlet route sometimes. It's really sad that Nintendo is preventing many of it's fans from being able to profit by spreading the word about them. You have Angry Joe, PewDiePie (The biggest youtuber there is right now), Total biscuit, and many others boycotting Nintendo. Refusing to make any more video's about them, or even wanting to talk about them anymore. You get too many people not even willing to talk about you anymore, it's really going to start hurting your sales (Which their sales have been pretty horrible the past few years, honestly. I know they've made many other mistakes with the 3DS and the Wii U, but this revenue taking is a part of it.)
Just my two cents.
-
Animeboye, I'm sorry but, you just don't see the fallacy in your arguments. You see, the thing about Let's Plays is that they are fair use for one VERY big reason. In fact, it is the one main point that really makes them transformative enough to make them fair use.
Playing a game yourself and watching someone else play a game are two VERY different experiences. Anyone who has been through both can testify to this. It's these two different experiences that Let's Plays hinge on to make them fair use in the first place. (That and commentating on their experience while playing it.) The fact you are watching someone play a game rather than playing it yourself.
Remember, unless you can disprove the differences in the experiences, you really aren't going to get anywhere in this argument.
-
Let's Plays are fair use? Since when? When did this change? Source, mein freund?
Yes, playing a game vs watching someone play are two different experiences. So what? What does that change? You say my argument has fallacies yet I see just as many, if not more, in yours. If I watch two people watching a movie or listening to a song, then that changes the experience just as much as watching someone play a game.
And thanks for telling me how to debate. I never would have figured that out on my own with my tiny little brain. You haven't proven any of my points wrong. You're just regurgitating what entitled Let's Players like DarksydePhil have already said. "I deserve that money because I had to go through the harrowing trial of turning on my console/PC, starting up my camera, and filming myself play a video game! Then...then...I had to upload the footage and EDIT IT!!! WAAAAH!!!"
No. I'm sorry but you DON'T deserve that money. That is not your content. I can't go to a theater, film a movie, commentate during said movie, then upload the footage and make money off of it. Why should Let's Players be allowed to get away with stuff that no one else would ever be able to? They're not special. They shouldn't be held above the law.
I hope I proved my points to your liking. That took all the brain power I had.
PS, let me tell you a little secret: I've considered possibly trying to do my own Let's Plays. Not saying I will but maybe. But if I do, I'm not monetizing the videos. Why? Because the footage in said videos wouldn't belong to me. I'd feel guilty (possibly) getting rich off of someone else's hard work.
-
Let's Plays are fair use? Since when? When did this change? Source, mein freund?
Ask and ye shall receive.
https://iplsrutgers.wordpress.com/2014/01/2...itute-fair-use/ (https://iplsrutgers.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/do-lets-play-videos-constitute-fair-use/)
When it comes to fair use, what matters most isn't whether or not the content is yours. What matters most of all is HOW you use said content to make the experience different.
On top of what I have said, copyright laws are different for each piece of media. In the case of movies, the MPAA has made it their business to make what you can do with movie footage as limited as possible. (Why do you think they try to make SOPA happen? It's just to restrict us more than we already are.) Video games on the other hand don't have as many restrictive copyright laws. They do have a lot, I will admit, just not as many. What you can do with one piece of media may not be the same with others.
Using movies to compare copyright laws of video games doesn't work because the copyright laws are different from one another.
-
Well good golly gee! A source!
Alright. Having read some of this, I strongly disagree with a couple things. Firstly, he says that most videos have the person discussing the game, like giving hints or analyzing them. Not from what I've seen. Most of the Let's Players I've seen spend that time usually just making bad jokes and not even paying that much attention to the game. Or in the case of someone like DSP, his critiques of games usually are just "Dood, the game's bugged man! The game didn't explain anything! Freakin' Kojima!!"
Second, while there are Let's Plays that don't profit off the game, there are more that do than don't. So he's not exactly right that most Let's Plays don't profit.
Third, while there are Let's Players who do only post a single video of a game. Kr1tikal for instance. Sorry if I spelled his name wrong. He's also one of the only Let's Players I actually find funny. He only posts one video of a game and it's usually not that long. In the case of someone like DSP, Game Grumps, or Pewdiepie though, they normally post the entirety of their playthroughs. This can actually be a bad thing if the game is say, more story heavy. If someone is going to watch the entire playthrough of a story heavy game, they may see fit not to buy it since they've already experienced the story. In some ways, this can even be true for more gameplay oriented games like Mario.
Now before you say that their experience may not be the same as the person's they just watched, that doesn't matter. If they've already seen the story and the gameplay, they could see fit not to by the game. True, this won't be the case for everybody but there will always be exceptions. And what if those people were planning on buying the game but then watched a Let's Play of it and decided that was good enough? That's one less sale the game's getting.
Going slightly off topic from the article, one rebuttal I've heard about Let's Plays is that they're "free advertising". That doesn't work. When you advertise something, games included, you only show a little bit of that product. You don't show it in its entirety. Again, there are Let's Players who do show only tidbits of a game, like Kr1tikal. His videos I'd say could be a stronger case for that than say the three I mentioned two paragraphs ago.
And I'm willing to contradict myself a bit here and say this: while Let's Plays can help certain games. Indie games like say, Minecraft, Five Nights At Freddy's, or Stanley Parable, bigger name games like Mario, Call of Duty, GTA, Assassin's Creed, and Zelda don't need help selling. These games are well known even outside of the gaming community. Games like Mario and GTA have sold well long before Let's Plays were even a concept and will continue to sell long after the fad ends.
That was quite a lot to type in all seriousness. Strangely enough, I actually feel a bit better having debated on this. I do have some more I'd like to share but it's getting late where I am and I have to be up in a few hours. So I'll leave it at this for now.
-
Double post but I just wanted to apologize for my snarky comments towards Pokeplayer last night. There's been some stuff going on in my life right now(job related stuff) that last night just pushed me over the edge. I still stand by what I've said about Let's Plays being monetized but for right now, I think it'd be best for myself as well as everyone else if I just don't post in this topic anymore. I've said my piece and I don't know what else I can contribute to the conversation.
-
I've noticed a lot lately that every time I try to watch an Assassin's Creed video, some company called Merlin is claiming copyright and blocking the video. I was under the impression that Ubisoft owned the Assassin's Creed franchise. I don't know who these Merlin pricks are but they're taking down anything remotely associated with Assassin's Creed. They took down one video because the guy in it was playing the theme song on a violin.