Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Nintendo decides it owns YouTube's Let's Play scene
Posts
TB hasn't done any Nintendo videos, but I see your point. LPers are trying to earn a paycheck off of rebroadcasting video games to the masses, so if they aren't seeing any advertising revenue off of it then why should they bother? Taking down their previously done work is a spite move, of course, and I still feel they shouldn't be violating Youtube's TOS in the first place, but I seem to be in the minority around here.
NNID and many other services: Athenor or Myridiam // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
Son, you need to learn about Fire Emblem. Also in the latest Zelda?
9 chapters in to the most recent one has a massive fucking plot event that I would not have wanted spoiled.
That isn't how I understood it is happening, though. To keep with my example of TB's WTF series, he would no longer be getting the ad revenue, a third party related to whatever game he happened to be reviewing would be getting it. In which case, why would he bother wasting time on something he isn't going to get paid for?
I'd be fine with this, honestly. Again: I am a firm believer that the creator of content should be rightfully compensated for how it is used, be it a large corporation or an individual. I'd move to using a sig/avatar that were deliberately and clearly marked as being part of the public domain.
NNID and many other services: Athenor or Myridiam // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
In many cases, they're probably fine.
The problem is, odds are their algorithm (like basically every other algorithm doing this) is overzealous, claiming videos they have no rights over (Remember the debacle over NASA's stuff getting taken down?). Making money off a video that they don't hold copyrights over IS wrong (Most likely, because of fair use - if someone is showing snippets of the game as part of a review, for instance, they hold copyright to the video as a whole, not Nintendo).
Currently playing: DI:Riptide, Eador:MotBW, FE:A, MH3U
If something that is clearly fair use violates Youtube's TOS, then Youtube's TOS are badly formulated.
While that may be a valid point RE: the TOS...
When has fair use ever included the whole and 100% rebroadcast of a work?
Note I'm not focusing on short 10 minute videos unless they are part of a larger playthrough of a game. But definitions of fair use for educational purposes are no where near what an LP is. An LP is usually a vehicle for entertainment value.
NNID and many other services: Athenor or Myridiam // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
I really like this analogy, and feel like it is genuinely enlightening.
That said, I think we can all agree that pirated games being made into LP's don't have any legitimate moral right to do so. But if you have paid for the carrots, you get to make stew with them. Even at a dinner party. Even at a commercial restaurant.
Edit: Actually, that's a good point. How does Team Four Star make money off their vids? I know there aren't ads on them, because they don't have the rights to do so.. but they do make money from merchandise sales and appearance fees, right?
NNID and many other services: Athenor or Myridiam // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
My issue is that there's a very ambiguous line in everything I've seen concerning this, and that is the fact that it's pretty much any content "of a certain length". This doesn't mention only showing straight up gameplay, or even going so far as to specify gameplay without commentary. It's pretty much all content that shows any kind of clips of the property in question. Channels that function on showing reviews for games, channels that only do commentaries, channels that just show gameplay, channels that do all of the above, will all be hit by this.
I think our main point of disagreement is that for me, watching a game is not what gives it value, as it does with books, movies or tv shows. A game must be played. Would you buy Gears of War 3 if it was only gameplay footage plus cutscenes and you could not control any part of it?
Following on my Matlab example, what gives Matlab its value is its use, and not its images. What if I did a "let's Matlab" series recording my crazy Matlab adventures, showing the basic commands and their normal uses and then showing some twists and neat little tricks that make your coding easier? What if I show some of Matlab's easter eggs on Youtube? Would that be considered my effort and my work or would I be "broadcasting Matlab" and any revenue I get for the videos would be considered illegitimate?
I haven't played through Skyward Sword yet, but I honestly don't care much about the plot anyways. Could you please spoiler that anyways, please? Just in case.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
You'll note that there is a lot more covered there than just the act of gameplay itself. The images and sounds both fall under Nintendo's copyright. THAT is what Nintendo is protecting. I think that imagery is just as valuable as the gameplay is; other people don't. That is the main point of disagreement, I agree.
NNID and many other services: Athenor or Myridiam // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
Also I'm definitely curious as to what constitutes a transformative work. The way that Youtube TOS snippet that was posted made it sound was:
1) Video where I play Gears of War with friends for a bit, not cool
2) Video where I play the exact same Gears of War section but accompany it with an edit in of my standing giving tutoring on Gears and pointing out secrets, cool go for it.
Which seems kind of vague and fuzzy.
At the end of the day it still feels like a dick move. If it were simply a matter of 'we don't view our games as LPable without ruining sales' like Athenor said then they should just blanket remove videos or put a ban on it. They didn't, what they said was 'that's some nice effort you put into your work, but see we're just gonna take the cash from it'. It doesn't really matter if at base the lets play is based on something they own. It still feels like a bit of a slap in the face policy wise.
That's interesting. I'm probably misunderstanding, but doesn't "copyright" in this context mean only that you don't have the right to produce a, say, Legend of Zelda game using Zelda characters, music etc.? You definitely aren't reproducing a game or its contents by playing it, you're using the game.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
Link is Nintendo's character. The Song of Storms is Nintendo's arrangement (you can't copyright sound, you can copyright a series of sounds in a specific arrangement or a recording of sounds). If you were to use either of those without consent Nintendo could come after you. Generally they won't unless you are costing them money (hurting/confusing their brand) and/or making money off of it.
It gets real thorny, real fast. Honestly this entire country needs a hell of a lot of copyright reform.
NNID and many other services: Athenor or Myridiam // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
I just still think it's a weird policy. Like I said, if you want to blanket say 'no unauthorised videos of our games ever' go for it. Saying 'well uh.. you guys keep spending time and money on LP's just give us all you make' screams of wanting it both ways.
"Nintendo claims ad revenue for Youtube Let's Plays of their IP" seems good.
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
NNID and many other services: Athenor or Myridiam // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
Or, even more correctly, "Nintendo claims ad revenue for any Nintendo footage on Youtube", since that's what everything is pointing too right now.
A similar misrepresentation of events happened with the Sega thing - Sega was targeting any and all mention / footage of something, not just Lets Plays.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
NNID and many other services: Athenor or Myridiam // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
Wait, you made a good example with Matlab and needing to pay for a license there. How does it follow that "Nintendo already made their money, LPers are chefs?"
I buy a movie. I decide to upload the entire thing to the internet with me talking over it. Sometimes I will pause the movie and zoom in to accentuate things to put my own personal "chef" spin on it to make things interesting. This is fine? That company already made their correspondent profit at their correspondent link in the chain when I bought the DVD, so they shouldn't do anything about this?
This is what you are arguing. You're saying buying a game gives you license to redistribute videos of it as much as you want, y'know, just like buying a movie gives you license to do the same thing...?
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
nobody really doubts that nintendo has the authority in law to do what they're doing. That point is not in question (at least in the U.S., which is the only jurisdiction that really matters in these cases.)
ed: To put a fine point on it, what people are talking about is whether nintendo should have the authority to do it, and given the authority whether they should
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
The Sega thing was a complete closure of any channel that even mentioned Shining Force. Not just the video, the whole channel. That was a bit ridiculous. This is roughly the same thing, only one step back from "batshit crazy", and one step forward to "greedy dicks", IMO.
The stuff I've seen about this isn't just for Nintendo game LPs, its for everything that shows Nintendo stuff at all. Reviews, LPs, multiplayer commentaries, anything. If they want to be specific, then they need to fucking be specific.
It's clear they have the authority. As to wether they should, logic points to them "shooting themselves in the foot."
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
Yeah. I agree under our insane IP laws, they have a legal right to do it, but want to point out that they probably shouldn't. but even if they should have the right to do so, doing so is still a dick move because other video game companies have successfully profited off more community centric policies.
Yeah I was confused because I never said anything about "the right." :P
Australopitenico didn't seem to be talking about whether they should or not. He said he bought a Matlab license that allowed him to use the software by proxy for someone else. So does buying a movie give me the license to share it with everyone else, especially if I put some original spin on it?
My argument is that this transformative process he goes on about is bullshit and not something that suddenly allows you to do whatever you want.
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
You have a very odd definition of "same thing."
Sega killed channels (unless they fought back, then videos were just killed) for showing or mentioning Shining Force.
Nintendo has given Lets Plays their blessing but is redirecting ad revenue to Nintendo.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
Hell just give all of the add revenue to the people hosting the channels.
The funny thing is that I'm not even sure how these people are getting ad money in the first place. I put up a Portal video on Youtube that generated a lot of hits, and got an email asking if I wanted to throw an ad on there. I said "yes" but then it came back rejected because I don't own the rights to the game.
I don't see how an LP is any different.
Also videos of SC2 / LoL are COMPLETELY different. Those are competitive games and people are watching them for their strategies and not for the story/gameplay. I know I sure as hell wouldn't watch any of those videos because I'm not interested in "becoming the best" but I will sit down and watch GameGrumps play through Mario Party 3.
The "transformative process" actually does matter in law, but given the scale of the use in your run of the mill LP U.S. law almost certainly does not grant license.
so what?
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
I suppose. Channel closures happened unless the offending videos were removed. That was censorship, really, and I guess this isn't quite the same.
I don't see how Nintendo taking all of the income for videos that they spent minimal effort making is a blessing, though. It's coming off to me as "I like your money, so I'm taking it because you used my tools product to make it."
Edit - clarify a bit
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. A video game is meant for playing. You buy video games for playing them, so in my book there is nothing wrong with showing people videos of video games, because they are not movies. What you are saying you do with the movie is COMPLETELY different to a let's play.
What you guys are saying is that I should not be allowed to see Marcus Fenix's ugly-ass face if I didn't buy Gears of War. If you are seriously saying that seeing a playthrough in youtube is exactly the same as playing the game I think we are never going to agree.
The logical conclusion for what you guys are saying is that there exists a market out there for people who will buy a video game just to watch it play out in front of them.
A commented let's, a review, a WTF. All those are transformative processess. The same way I'm buying matlab and analyzing data by proxy and showing them the results, these guys are buying a game, playing it by proxy and showing us the results. All for a price that is not very high.
Because when Google stands to make a ton of money they're more than willing to work with the channel owner. There was an interesting thread at GAF about YT ad rates and while its terms are strictly under an NDA some users chimed in with their experience and determined it to be roughly 1-3 bucks per 1000 views. That's not chump change when you're hitting a million views a month. One guy said at one point he was pulling in roughly 9000 a month from 4.5 million views a month.
So basically yeah, Nintendo has every right to do it but they're also fucking over what are likely their biggest fan's entire livelihood.
How so? I went through the transformative process, which is apparently all that is necessary to give me the right to upload it. I've taken that movie and done a little remix on those ingredients like Gordon Ramsay, and the company already got their money from the sale of the DVD. What's the problem?
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
Nope. There's a market out there that will watch someone play a video game for free. I know that my wife enjoys watching me play video games because she's just not as good at them as I am.
At this point you either are grasping at straws or you live in a completely different reality than I do. In my planet, videogames and movies are fundamentally different, and watching someone play the game is a totally different experience than playing the video game. However, watching a movie and watching a movie are similar experiences.