05-22-2013, 05:18 PM
(05-22-2013, 04:05 PM)Kriven Wrote: Also - LPers are still currently acting within the law until a court ruling deems otherwise, which has not happened yet. If you want to outlaw LPing, you have to actually sue a LPer. Most companies know it isn't worth the fight (despite knowing that they probably will win) and opt, instead, for YouTube removal.
Until such time that a court actually makes a firm stance on what constitutes what percent of a video game and the legality of LP videos, LPers are not acting outside of the law in monetizing their videos.
Whoops, I did my homework and it looks like I was right again. Donald Trump couldn't trademark "his" phrase. Whenever a company like Volkswagen tries to trademark "bug" or Facebook tries to trademark "-book", it hardly goes over well. If someone took the proper legal steps in the creation process it wouldn't be "terrifying" to create custom material. When people cut corners, don't want to be bothered by legalities or just plain dislike copyright laws of course they'll be shot down.
And yes, a precedent must be set before LP's are declared to be illegal. Nintendo's generous enough to let the LP'ers make LP's instead of sending an LP'er into financial ruin. I'd be willing to bet Nintendo's PR department figured this a much more acceptable and less aggressive alternative.
Keep in mind that if any LP'er wanted they could sue Nintendo! Would they succeed? Probably not. Would they end up having LP's outlawed? Hopefully.
Also the content-matching is very likely fault with Google's software, not Nintendo. I don't know the specifics, but I find it hard to believe Nintendo is manually flagging every single Let's Play they put ads on. If you have any evidence from a YouTube FAQ or something similar then do share.
(Also, Koh, that's not a FF edit...)