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
Reviews for Duke Nukem Forever were not great advertising for the publisher trying to sell the game! They could decide that since the reviews are making money off their game they should be removed. That's within their options, since someone is using their work to gain personal profit.
You are contradicting yourself there. Either you recognize that there is a difference between an LP and simple gameplay footage, or you don't. If there is a difference, then the LPer is producing something, and are being deprived of the revenue from their work. Just because this is legal does not mean that it isn't a shitty move.
Also, there is a difference between a freelance LP, and a sponsored/corporate LP. It might not be a huge difference, but it can be akin to the difference between a freelance reviewer of games/movies, and a corporate reviewer of games/movies. The product can be drastically different depending on various factors re: criticism, censorship, etc.
And lastly, nobody is expecting to get rich doing LPs, they do LPs because they like doing it, while showing people games they enjoy and providing entertainment through commentary. This costs them money, and the IP owner depriving them of what little revenue they might generate only serves to potentially shut down some LPers or reduce the amount of content being generated, while having no positive PR connotations and negligible financial benefits. Just because it's legal to do doesn't make it a terribly smart thing to do. It is unlikely that doing this will increase sales, and could damage them through PR consequences and because some people judge games through LPs, especially due to their freelance nature as opposed to reviewers held in a strangehold by companies and official gameplay demos.
1. Lping is not a job, it's a hobby. An expensive one that is now more expensive.
2. If it was a job, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you should promote people becomming jobless.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
Do the rules of fair use extend to gameplay clips?
Don't do this ever again.
Let's Plays do not fall into that sort of 'creation' / 'creative content.'
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
Why not? Is the commentary not original?
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
Well, now there is a problem. Review and commentary are generally held up to be fair use; thus, the video's maker has now created a transformative work and should be entitled to his own creation, whether or not he has a domain name. Nintendo no longer has a claim here.
But now the question is, where do you draw the line between an actual review, and some guy talking while he plays the game? It gets a bit thorny at this point, and this opens up a legal and ethical minefield that, unfortunately, Nintendo can simply sidestep by virtue of having many times the resources of their targets.
That's exactly the point. It's not a job, it's a hobby. Getting money from it, even to cover costs, should not be a part of the equation.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
Tell #1 to half of Youtube's gaming channels. PewDiePie makes a good living off being an idiot while playing video games.
Why not? It's not like they're getting your tax money or somesuch.
Or: Say my hobby is, I don't know...reading books. Anything really. If someone decided to pay me for it, why would that be wrong? It would be his desicion, no? I don't see why you think that shouldn't happen.
Edit N.3: Not to mention that, again, effort and money goes into LPs. To create free content for other people, like me. I'm fine with them being compensated. Better example: If I buy PC components, build PCs and give them away for free, why would it be wrong if I were compensated?
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
In short you cannot tell me that I was ever going to buy Sonic 06, because it was dreadful. But I have watched two entirely hilarious LPs of it!
Your argument requires knowledge in advance of why someone is watching the LP. If it was for a game that the person never intended to buy in the first place, your argument automatically fails. In fact it then turns into the absolute opposite: The only thing to gain is a sale, which completely demolishes any argument you have.
And ultimately leaves us at the point that LPs can function entirely like reviews, letting people decide to continue watching it or if it's worth while buying the game. As for ignoring the rest, it's irrelevant because this is the core point right here that you've highlighted. If you're a publisher, you probably want to believe your statement is always true, but in the real world it's probably not at all true for the majority of cases.
Again, there are people who watch LPs of games they have played, or are playing (for advice/hints/solutions), there are people who do indeed never intend to buy the game but may watch it (comedy, eg sonic), there are people who will buy it because they like the LP when they wouldn't have and yes, there are people who will change their mind deciding the game will suck.
Your very base and over simplistic argument of "watches LP = lost sale" is thus not relevant enough to how these things actually work.
Unless again, you want to tell me where I and the thousands IRRC of people who have watched Pikapuffs LP of Sonic 06. Hell the latest Game Grumps Sonic 06 episode has 109,930 views. Would you, in the context of your argument, please advise me on how many of these people ever intended to buy Sonic 06 before watching the LP? Or can you see the greater point at work now?
The question is: Would he have ever bought it if the LP option wasn't there? That's the point, after all some people may have bought the game because of people showing that the story was significantly different. You can't say and that's the problem. Unless you disagree that an LP can sell people on a game, there is no valid argument on your side.
Already there are people arguing in absolutes - "You can't do this, it's illegal" or "You can do that, it's not immoral!" without any context to the content being discussed. This is a complex issue, and I would like to get someone who is actually an expert in this sort of matter (as in, a legal expert) to weigh in. Otherwise this topic will just be a lot of bickering.
It is, but it relies on the layer of the video game being seen and heard along with it. Rifftrax was brought up earlier - a film is easier to record commentary for and leave that for people to sync with a film on their own. With a video game, you can't exactly easily sync a commentary track over a game you're playing because people play differently. The end result is kinda being out of luck with video games.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
I could argue that they fall under the category of Reality TV shows. Watching a comedic personality do things that I am familiar doing, but with their own personal take on it. That is what Reality TV shows are.
Education makes things a totally different ballgame. See Fair Use law.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
This hinges on the precise terms of Nintendo stating that footage over a certain amount of time.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
I'm tired of arguing with you. I have proven you wrong, you argue points I do not make.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
If you're in any doubt about this, talk to Machinima's legal department.
Reality TV has to clear things that show up. Consent. Be it from individuals who are at a location being filmed or owners of products (Coke, Sony, etc).
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
You have not proven anything at all, like how your argument I have quoted relates at all to what actually happens.
Again, 109,930 people have viewed the latest game grumps episode of Sonic 06. How many of them are lost sales? Or are you completely conceding your argument?
Edit: And bear in mind, your first example was Metro 2033 and I pointed out I bought the game due to watching an LP. I did not do so in response to your argument, I mentioned it on page 1 of this thread well before our discussion. So I think I showed your core argument to be vastly flawed without the usual Internet tactic of name x and then, well of course I did the opposite. :P
I'm pretty sure Machinima endeavors to get things cleared.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
YouTube has agreed to act on Nintendo's behalf, so the intent of YouTube policy seems to be a little clearer.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
The line needs to be drawn somewhere, though. Every step of the way, through every layer of infringement, some amount of people will consider it a dick move. It's dickish to shut down fan games, it's dickish to shut down works that appear mostly derivitive, it's dickish to prevent the distribution of soundtracks. I can't say I think it matters much that somebody's feelings were hurt because X was harmless and/or beneficial. Somebody will always think that. What does matter is protecting your copyright or losing it.
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
I think you misquoted. I never argued that.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
In general, when they consider partnership with someone, one of the things they ask for is copyright claims on the account so that they can make sure they can contest them all on Fair Use grounds. I have, I think, 4 or 5 friends with Machinima contracts, and this was accurate to all their experiences.
Youtube operates under the DCMA, of which any claim is met with action regardless of validity. basically they get your shit off the internet first, then sort out if it was nice and legal behind the scenes, afterwards. You shouldn't judge any takedown's viability based off of action. While I think it's pretty safe to assume Youtube will keep these videos off, there is always a chance they'll be put back online if they find there to be no infringement
1. I never said that.
2. @Jeedan
Edit: I'm not arguing absolutes. You are. And you're wrong. In general, there tend to be little absolutes in life.
"There is one counterargument. Your entire thesis is wrong." Is bad when no one was arguig that it was always the case. If I'm arguing possiblity, then you have to prove that said possibility doesn't exist. Which I've proven wrong.
And this whole thing is exponentially getting stupider. And more senseless. And I've proven you wrong, or better, Jeedan has. And it doesn't matter because of COURSE there are some people who 1. want to buy a game, then 2. watch a complete LP of a game, then 3. lose desire of buying said game, even if they still think it is good.
I'm done with this.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
But we're not talking about videos being taken down. Nintendo hasn't done that and has declared intent to not pursue that.
We're talking about the ad partnership program YouTube has. Who deserves the money when people are using this sort of material to try and make that money via the ad program? Nintendo has moved that it's the one that is deserving of it. My view is that they have the strongest case for it being theirs. So it's going to cut people off who have depended on ad revenue from YouTube as their income, which was a very, very poorly decided and misguided thing to do.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
Um. Actually you did. This is your post on the previous page.
So yes. You actually did argue that.
So you concede that argument was entirely wrong, or will you make some argument as to how many of the 100,000ish people watching that Game Grumps LP of Sonic 06 decided not to buy the game? Bear in mind my disagreement is specifically with the bolded portion, because you inherently assume someone wanted to buy the game before they watched the LP. If that assumption is wrong, the entire premise of that argument collapses. Do you agree or disagree? Because if you see the error, then indeed, you don't need to tell me why myself (and many others) probably never were going to buy Sonic 06 in the first place.
On the other hand, I would like to know your logic for why these people wanted to buy the game before they watched the LP. That's my problem with your argument as it only works if someone intended to buy the game, watched the LP and then didn't buy it. You miss the equally likely chance (sometimes more likely) that someone has utterly no interest in buying the game in the first place before watching the LP.
You're suggesting Lets Players are making hundreds of thousands of dollars? Edit - Through the ad program?
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
Who... Who is making millions of dollars doing this?
That line doesn't mean what you think it does. It's neither relating to you, nor stating that any person that met this condition was before of the opinion that they should buy this game.
Either you're comprehending it wrong, or you're deliberately maing false claims.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
Also it's kinda pointless arguing with Henroid when his opinion on the job which pays a few people is that it's not a job.
Like at that point you just can't make words, it just doesn't work.
edit: I'm talking from the perspective of the LPer, not the game creator; the bolded statement I was referring to is a little ambiguous, as "setting up" for LPing takes the $24 for a FRAPS license, but the games themselves will cost $50+ a pop if you're doing recent games. I recognise it could also have been referring to the cost of creating the games.
It shouldn't be a job because of how easily it could be taken away. Way too risky a thing to hedge your bets on.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013