Nintendo ID Claims Youtube LPs

[Davy Jones]

Youtube spammed me with useless ads and it took 5 or 15 seconds until I can skip one of it, so I'm really thankful for AdBlock.

Also blocking all cookies from Youtube and Google since I hate these useless recommendations (videos I watched before) in the sidebar. And of course: NoScript against some malicious JavaScript bullcrap.

For the copyright thing: Not sure if I like this, since it could be the end for one of my favourite LP series.

[Helmo]

Game Grumps Emerald... just when I thought i would see you again old friend...

[NICKtendo DS]

Also i am going to join koh's side this time, if they want to make money out of LPs they should contact the game makers about it, or not monetize their videos at all. I believe thats how most review shows work and idont think it should be different. Considering that there are companies that would just take those videos off.

I'm on your side as well. I don't see the harm in this and it makes sense. I think people who call this a dick move are a bit overreacting. If I were to make an LP, I'd do it for fun, not for money. I have other ways to fatten my wallet.

[Mutsukki]

Also i am going to join koh's side this time, if they want to make money out of LPs they should contact the game makers about it, or not monetize their videos at all. I believe thats how most review shows work and idont think it should be different. Considering that there are companies that would just take those videos off.

I'm on your side as well. I don't see the harm in this and it makes sense. I think people who call this a dick move are a bit overreacting. If I were to make an LP, I'd do it for fun, not for money. I have other ways to fatten my wallet.

That's literally the same as somebody saying "oh you shouldn't draw/make music/make games for money! that's just a hobby and for fun, go get a real job to have your money".

How many of you have ever tried making an interesting video full of content to be such a judge of people wanting to get money for that, I wonder. I know that Nintendo has the right over their proprierty, but, like I said, not over the video content itself. This is better than them shutting the videos down? Yes, of course, but that doesn't make it really good either, you know. I'm still waiting to see an convincing argument as to why people shouldn't make money off their work to make an interesting show.

Also a lot of review shows DO get money out of it, by the way, it would make no sense if they didn't.

[Koh]

To Mutsukki's Post

Maybe they should've studied law BEFORE trying to make money off of them? They wouldn't have dug their own graves in that case. You should always be aware of and wary what can legally go down if you're trying to earn any sort of money form content that isn't yours. For the LPers who are truly just doing it for the entertainment of their viewers, and not the money, they will be the ones who are left and aren't making "I'm leaving" or etc. announcements. They will be the true soldiers.

[Gors]

Exactly, and thats why usual review shows are professionally set up and contacts game makers to review or play through games. See: Game Center CX.

You can get money by doing hobby stuff. Thats perfectly fine. But you will be doing original stuff most of the time. You can even charge money for a fanart, but you are entirely on your own when doing such thing, see many cease-and-desisted fangames. The same occurs in LPs, you are dealing with something not yours. Therefore, no matter how much effort you put into it, you have no rights to earn money from it if you do your LPs informally. Its like clandestine radio stations. You have no support from the companies, only you get the profit and play things not made by you. And it is a crime.

Tl;dr either step it up and make video reviewing a proper job, or dont charge for it.

Analoguelly, you shall not charge for fangames too.

---

now this might sound harsh (it is), i know they really put a shitton of efforts to entertain people. But just like in Brazil you need to have a CPF/CNPJ to open a shop, CRC to be an accountant, CRM to be a medic etc. the LPers should have some legal backup for their activities. I mean, it sounds like a hassle and all, but once you get this right, both the company and your LPs get money, you get even more content for your program, having the opportunity to even meet real game makers and stuff, and well, you'd have avoided all this shit in first place.

How many of you have ever tried making an interesting video full of content to be such a judge of people wanting to get money for that, I wonder

just like you don't need to know how to draw or shade to give insightful C+C, you don't need to create an LP to know how making an LP is hard.

[Mutsukki]

Except they're not charging anyone anything and you're missing the point by a kilometer? So, how should we deal with artists that make covers of other songs, but with their own style? I guess they should be sued too or at least give all their earnings to the original artist, huh. How is -creating and preparing you own content- not original work? When I adress this point, you never counter-argument it, which is weird because that's the whole point. You say they should contact Nintendo to LP their games? Don't you realize how ridiculous that sounds? It's like me being unable to write an walkthrough about a Nintendo game on my blog, which I happen to monetize, because it's a Nintendo game. Gamefaqs must have been sued as hell.

And what the hell law has to do with Nintendo pulling off a dickish move? It's on their own right, I never contested that, but that doesn't mean that they're not being dicks ultimately. It was a win-win situation for everyone: Youtube got more views, content creators got money and Nintendo got their free advertising and word of mouth. What's gonna happen now? A decrease of Nintendo LP's in Youtube in general, so Nintendo won't make any more money anyway.

[Kriven]

Not to mention that it isn't a whole lot different from a sprite database which rips apart video games and distributes their resources on a webpage with intrusive advertisements.

[Mutsukki]

How many of you have ever tried making an interesting video full of content to be such a judge of people wanting to get money for that, I wonder

just like you don't need to know how to draw or shade to give insightful C+C, you don't need to create an LP to know how making an LP is hard.

Actually, apparently you all do, because if you think it's easy, that's seriously underestimating

now this might sound harsh (it is), i know they really put a shitton of efforts to entertain people. But just like in Brazil you need to have a CPF/CNPJ to open a shop, CRC to be an accountant, CRM to be a medic etc. the LPers should have some legal backup for their activities. I mean, it sounds like a hassle and all, but once you get this right, both the company and your LPs get money, you get even more content for your program, having the opportunity to even meet real game makers and stuff, and well, you'd have avoided all this shit in first place.
[quote]How many of you have ever tried making an interesting video full of content to be such a judge of people wanting to get money for that, I wonder

I get you've never heard of freelancers then? Or entertainers in general? Besides, the internet age changed a lot of how much bureocracy people need to put up with to make money

[Koh]

Actually, apparently you all do, because if you think it's easy, that's seriously underestimating

No one ever claimed it was easy, but unless they had some sort of contract with Nintendo, they shouldn't be making money of off it. They can easily do LPs and not make money from it. No one said you can't do LPs at all, but you shouldn't be making money from doing that alone without the consent of the content creators. Sure, you made the commentary/script/edits, but that's ALL you're entitled too. Take the game out, and that's all it is, which, unless there's a game attached to it, has no bearing.

[Gors]

So, how should we deal with artists that make covers of other songs, but with their own style? I guess they should be sued too or at least give all their earnings to the original artist, huh.

The copyright law strictly says that when you do a cover of a song or something, you still need to pay royalties to the original composer. Or when the singer/composer already died, it'd be sensible to ask his/her family or something. Suing over music is older than you think, and even if you make original content you are still using content that is not yours, and this forced Richard Strauss to pay royalties every time he played his Poem.

How is -creating and preparing you own content- not original work?

the same thing a fangame cannot be sold. Mario fangames can have original music, original sprites, original programming and original characters even. Though you can not sell it. No matter if you pixelled everything. No matter if you composed everything. It's still Mario, Mario is Nintendo, therefore it is illegal to sell your game. See how effort means nothing if the law isn't with you?

It's like me being unable to write an walkthrough about a Nintendo game on my blog, which I happen to monetize, because it's a Nintendo game. Gamefaqs must have been sued as hell.

It's because in your case in specific, Nintendo doesn't care about going after these sites. They are numerous and would do Nintendo or any game maker no good in taking them down. Also walkthroughs, imo, are more lax compared to LPs because well, LP is literally recording a huge chunk of the game. There's music, there's programming, there's story being told all in the same time. This is what I think, I don't know how law treats walkthroughs in specific.

It is dickish? Maybe. But still their rights. But so is dickish that in Brazil, everyone has the rights for defense in court even if we think and have a handful of proof that he is guilty. That's law.

---

Dazz himself had to deal with copyright laws while running tSR once too if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure maybe what keeps tSR up is that it deals mostly with graphics and sound effects, which aren't that 'spoiling' in the game makers' eyes than a LP is? I have no idea.

PS: I know that charlie and the chocolate factory isn't a music but you get the point

PS2: I also don't know international laws, let alone national laws, but I did my best to gather examples. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

---

Quick recap:

1-LPs are hard to make. No one said it was easy;
2-There is obivous effort in there. But personally it can't be charged because it's associated with something not yours;
3-People that get money off this will be pretty pissed off, but well, the laws don't seem to help them in this case;
4-I might be wrong, in this case ignore me and let's do a group hug.

[Mutsukki]

Actually, apparently you all do, because if you think it's easy, that's seriously underestimating

No one ever claimed it was easy, but unless they had some sort of contract with Nintendo, they shouldn't be making money of off it. They can easily do LPs and not make money from it. No one said you can't do LPs at all, but you shouldn't be making money from doing that alone without the consent of the content creators. Sure, you made the commentary/script/edits, but that's ALL you're entitled too. Take the game out, and that's all it is, which, unless there's a game attached to it, has no bearing.

Of course that's all, it's the whole video that's left without the video. Then, by your logic, if you put that script in a series of still images, it would be ok because it's not a video? That has no logic.

How is -creating and preparing you own content- not original work?

the same thing a fangame cannot be sold. Mario fangames can have original music, original sprites, original programming and original characters even. Though you can not sell it. No matter if you pixelled everything. No matter if you composed everything. It's still Mario, Mario is Nintendo, therefore it is illegal to sell your game. See how effort means nothing if the law isn't with you?

Which part of "they're not charging anyone anything" is hard to understand? And even if they did sell DVD compilations or shirts or whatever, like the Angry Videogame Nerd always did, the only thing copyrighted thing is like, the game's footage recorded by themselves, which I'm think makes it their right over the video anyway?

[Koh]

Which part of "they're not charging anyone anything" is hard to understand? And even if they did sell DVD compilations or shirts or whatever, like the Angry Videogame Nerd always did, the only thing copyrighted thing is like, the game's footage recorded by themselves, which I'm think makes it their right over the video anyway?

The difference here is, he's not doing a Let's Play, recording every little thing that happens in the game. He does the aforementioned, where he'll say problems with a game, show a clip, do his other movie editing things, and show what other factors he has to talk about. He doesn't have a full play list of like 39 videos showing his entire playthrough of the game.

And you may not directly be charging money, but doing it indirectly. The moment the ads play, you get whatever amount of money from that ad, which can be at the beginning, middle or end of the video. That's still the original game creator's money unless it's a review like the aforementioned.

EDIT: Let me put it this way. What you're saying is basically this:

"I recorded a DVD movie. As the DVD is playing in the background, I'm talking about each scene and giving my opinion on it, occasionally cracking jokes. I should be able to sell this recording."

Does that make any sense?

[Gors]

You know how companies work. They aren't your idols that fly around the world giving glittery treats for everyone. They are a huge mess of people working to get money. Obviously if they see their stuff making money, they will do something about it. Yes, even if the money is not going from the viewers to the LPer.

It doesn't matter that the LPers aren't charging others. Their stuff are printing money, and that's all what it takes to a company take over it.

[Mutsukki]

Which part of "they're not charging anyone anything" is hard to understand? And even if they did sell DVD compilations or shirts or whatever, like the Angry Videogame Nerd always did, the only thing copyrighted thing is like, the game's footage recorded by themselves, which I'm think makes it their right over the video anyway?

The difference here is, he's not doing a Let's Play, recording every little thing that happens in the game. He does the aforementioned, where he'll say problems with a game, show a clip, do his other movie editing things, and show what other factors he has to talk about. He doesn't have a full play list of like 39 videos showing his entire playthrough of the game.

Ok, so that's alright, but commenting over your playthrough of a game isn't? I get where you're coming from, but somebody still had to write or at least, improvise to make the video -interesting-. Don't base LPers off PewDiePie or something, he's horrible. But there are people who does a legit good job out of it and shouldn't be penalyzed. It's not just a simple walkthrough, the best ones do a LOT of editing to make it interesting and not boring for everyone. To be fair and honest, the most early LPers did it just for fun, but if Youtube opens up the possibility of working on stuff and getting paid, why the hell is that wrong? Nintendo is shooting their own foot here.

And, as far as I know, people who do videos like AVGN are suffering from this too.