I shouldn't have been so rude but I really don't get it.
What is there not to get? They're being scumbaggy by leaving the videos up and taking the money from them. If they were genuinely concerned about copyright they'd just take them down, but they're not.
It's not a matter of whether or not it's legal for them to do it, it's a matter of whether or not it's stupid and exploitative, and it is.
I shouldn't have been so rude but I really don't get it.
It's more a matter of principle.
Also, I don't think anyone makes a living on LPs.
the dude who wrote that letter does.
More accurately, he makes a living off of a combination of LPs and video reviews, but he's more well known for the former (500+ episodes of Binding of Isaac will do that to you).
Plenty of people do. It's not exactly a straight shot to success mind you, but there's enough that it's classified as an industry, and of those people who make a living off of it, some make a living off of Nintendo game videos.
this is because you don't depend on it for a living.
Don't get me wrong, this is a dumb move by Nintendo from a PR perspective, and I understand why people who work hard making good Let's Plays can't get money for their work are angry that the gravy train has crashed but
A: Their are other games, made by other companies, who might not decide to do this.
B: This is people making money off of stuff Nintendo made. Maybe if LPs worked like Rifftrax, this would be okay, but it is impossible for LPs to work like rifftrax without serious hacking.
C: Nintendo is not actually shutting any accounts down.
A: Their are other games, made by other companies, who might not decide to do this.
That's not the point. The video game industry works (as many do) by trend-hopping, if Nintendo does this and other companies see that it works, they're going to start doing it too.
B: This is people making money off of stuff Nintendo made. Maybe if LPs worked like Rifftrax, this would be okay, but it is impossible for LPs to work like rifftrax without serious hacking.
It is, again, not a question of whether or not they have the legal right to do it (they do), it's a question of whether or not it's an ethical thing for them to do (it's not).
At some point, you either start repeating yourself or it turns into a podcast with BOI visuals and sound effects.
Well that's kind of what it is.
I mean he does challenge runs and stuff but at this point people who watch Northernlion watch him because he's funny, not because of the high docktane Binding of Isaac action.
It's like watching raocow, except Northernlion is significantly less purplemonkeycheese and is from a different part of Canada.
I can totally understand getting behind internet comedians and wanting to support them. Back when blip found a way around adblock, I was one of the first in line to tell people they should suck it up and just watch the ads and give their favorite reviewers money. If a genuinely funny guy wants to show off Skyward Sword and make money while he's doing it, good for him. But, the way things work is that if you're leaning on someone's property, they can tell you to get off their lawn. I don't like it, and I wish we lived in a world where this didn't happen and people weren't so uptight about copyright, but this isn't murder or even jaywalking.
I mean, looking at this from the perspective of the developers, a lot of this is morons like Pewdiepie making dick jokes over stuff they worked hard programming and designing and making more money than they do in the process. I realize it's not all that, but that's what it looks like.
I mean if I was a Star Wars makeup person or CGI guy, I might get annoyed with people walking up to me and making OHMYGAWD WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR FACE jokes and try to shut RLM down for making rape jokes over a movie he didn't make. Except this isn't even shutting anyone down, it's just stopping monetization.
I can totally understand getting behind internet comedians and wanting to support them. Back when blip found a way around adblock, I was one of the first in line to tell people they should suck it up and just watch the ads and give their favorite reviewers money. If a genuinely funny guy wants to show off Skyward Sword and make money while he's doing it, good for him. But, the way things work is that if you're leaning on someone's property, they can tell you to get off their lawn. I don't like it, and I wish we lived in a world where this didn't happen and people weren't so uptight about copyright, but this isn't murder or even jaywalking.
No one is comparing it to murder or jaywalking. They're just saying it's shitty (it is) and most people are embargoing Nintendo games. That is all.
Also, I expect that if this goes unchallenged we can expect Nintendo to try to enact similar things on more traditional game review sites, and no one wants that.
I mean, looking at this from the perspective of the developers, a lot of this is morons like Pewdiepie making dick jokes over stuff they worked hard programming and designing and making more money than they do in the process. I realize it's not all that, but that's what it looks like.
I mean if I was a Star Wars makeup person or CGI guy, I might get annoyed with people walking up to me and making OHMYGAWD WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR FACE jokes and try to shut RLM down for making rape jokes over a movie he didn't make. Except this isn't even shutting anyone down, it's just stopping monetization.
You're not seriously expecting me to side with developers because programmers' feelings might be hurt, are you?
I've also already explained why stealing the ad revenue is worse than just taking down videos.
"I've also already explained why stealing the ad revenue is worse than just taking down videos."
Can you link me to those explanations?
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
Well, I have to go to dinner now. I might check in a couple of times via my phone, but I'll basically be going into radio silence for the most part. I'll see you guys in a couple of hours.
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
it's their intellectual property. it IS their money to take. You are wrong.
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
it's their intellectual property. it IS their money to take. You are wrong.
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
it's their intellectual property. it IS their money to take. You are wrong.
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
it's their intellectual property. it IS their money to take. You are wrong.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
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.[3] There would be no legal or monetary restrictions to prevent Nelson from producing them,[4] though viewers would have to provide the movies themselves.
They're not actuallydistrusting movies or content. A LP is showing copyrighted game content, as would the example here.
Technically speaking, Nintendo isn't stealing their money, whatever money they made from the ad revenue is theres to keep, It'd be more terminologically correct to say that nintendo is preventing them from further payment on the same thing.
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
it's their intellectual property. it IS their money to take. You are wrong.
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
it's their intellectual property. it IS their money to take. You are wrong.
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
it's their intellectual property. it IS their money to take. You are wrong.
If Nintendo demanded like, 10% of the money would that be okay, or would that also be stealing?
I don't understand what about "it's not their money to take" is hard to get.
If it were just silent walkthroughs or something I might be more open to the idea, but that's not what we're talking about.
If I am a stand-up comedian who can only do their act via a showing of The Wizard of Oz, MGM is not stealing if they want some money.
RiffTrax
Rifftrax either buys the rights to the movie, or makes an audio track that is distributed separately from the film.
yeah and afaik they usually do the latter which is basically a bit of legal finegeling.
would you be OK with it if Youtubers somehow monetized audiotracks that people could synch to gameplay footage via Synchtube or something?
Well Nintendo would probably just monetize the gameplay footage.
If they made patches where their commentary would activate during cutscenes and other spots and sold those, I would be fine with that
but that is functionally identical to what they're doing now, it's just harder to set up.
the only real difference is that Nintendo would also be getting money without cutting into the Youtubers' paychecks, which is great, but not how they're going about it, which is not.
and again, my point is not that Nintendo is somehow out of their legal rights to do this, it's that it's really stupid for them to do it, and it is.
Also yeah, using the phrase "stealing" implies illegal activity, no one is saying Nintendo is smart for doing this, just that they're within their legal right to.
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
it's their intellectual property. it IS their money to take. You are wrong.
If Nintendo demanded like, 10% of the money would that be okay, or would that also be stealing?
I don't understand what about "it's not their money to take" is hard to get.
If it were just silent walkthroughs or something I might be more open to the idea, but that's not what we're talking about.
If I am a stand-up comedian who can only do their act via a showing of The Wizard of Oz, MGM is not stealing if they want some money.
RiffTrax
Rifftrax either buys the rights to the movie, or makes an audio track that is distributed separately from the film.
yeah and afaik they usually do the latter which is basically a bit of legal finegeling.
would you be OK with it if Youtubers somehow monetized audiotracks that people could synch to gameplay footage via Synchtube or something?
Well Nintendo would probably just monetize the gameplay footage.
If they made patches where their commentary would activate during cutscenes and other spots and sold those, I would be fine with that
but that is functionally identical to what they're doing now, it's just harder to set up.
the only real difference is that Nintendo would also be getting money without cutting into the Youtubers' paychecks, which is great, but not how they're going about it, which is not.
and again, my point is not that Nintendo is somehow out of their legal rights to do this, it's that it's really stupid for them to do it, and it is.
I'm not sure I follow. Were you presenting your solution as identical or near identical from what is going on now? Because it's substantially different, assuming the game-play videos already existed, that is.
If you're suggesting LPers play the game, then comment over it and present the two videos separately, that wouldn't help them, because they'd still be creating and uploading videos of copyrighted contentcontent.
in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.
it's their intellectual property. it IS their money to take. You are wrong.
If Nintendo demanded like, 10% of the money would that be okay, or would that also be stealing?
I don't understand what about "it's not their money to take" is hard to get.
If it were just silent walkthroughs or something I might be more open to the idea, but that's not what we're talking about.
If I am a stand-up comedian who can only do their act via a showing of The Wizard of Oz, MGM is not stealing if they want some money.
RiffTrax
Rifftrax either buys the rights to the movie, or makes an audio track that is distributed separately from the film.
yeah and afaik they usually do the latter which is basically a bit of legal finegeling.
would you be OK with it if Youtubers somehow monetized audiotracks that people could synch to gameplay footage via Synchtube or something?
Well Nintendo would probably just monetize the gameplay footage.
If they made patches where their commentary would activate during cutscenes and other spots and sold those, I would be fine with that
but that is functionally identical to what they're doing now, it's just harder to set up.
the only real difference is that Nintendo would also be getting money without cutting into the Youtubers' paychecks, which is great, but not how they're going about it, which is not.
and again, my point is not that Nintendo is somehow out of their legal rights to do this, it's that it's really stupid for them to do it, and it is.
I'm not sure I follow. Were you presenting your solution as identical or near identical from what is going on now? Because it's substantially different, assuming the game-play videos already existed, that is.
If not functionally the same, it's very similar. All you're doing at that point is splitting the content into two videos.
If you're suggesting LPers play the game, then comment over it and present the two videos separately, that wouldn't help them, because they'd still be creating and uploading videos of copyrighted content.
Well I think the idea is that the video of the gameplay footage would get monetized by the company and the the commentary by the LPer, but in practice, I'm really not confident that that would work.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Well I think the idea is that the video of the gameplay footage would get monetized by the company and the the commentary by the LPer, but in practice, I'm really not confident that that would work.
In this case, I think there wouldn't be an issue for the LPer. Though making usable video game footage manifest would probably be difficult.
Well I think the idea is that the video of the gameplay footage would get monetized by the company and the the commentary by the LPer, but in practice, I'm really not confident that that would work.
In this case, I think there wouldn't be an issue for the LPer. Though making usable video game footage manifest would probably be difficult.
Well you could probably just split the video in two in post.
But aside from making LPs more difficult to watch in general, I'm pretty confident that companies being companies would simply take down the footage videos if they couldn't monetize everything, which would eventually lead to someone's channel getting axed.
Even if they didn't, having half of your own videos monetized by someone else makes getting a partnership with any of the couple companies that deal in LPs a very thorny issue. Which is the only way anyone makes sizable amounts of money off of Lets Playing.
Comments
What is there not to get? They're being scumbaggy by leaving the videos up and taking the money from them. If they were genuinely concerned about copyright they'd just take them down, but they're not.
It's not a matter of whether or not it's legal for them to do it, it's a matter of whether or not it's stupid and exploitative, and it is.
the dude who wrote that letter does.
More accurately, he makes a living off of a combination of LPs and video reviews, but he's more well known for the former (500+ episodes of Binding of Isaac will do that to you).
Plenty of people do. It's not exactly a straight shot to success mind you, but there's enough that it's classified as an industry, and of those people who make a living off of it, some make a living off of Nintendo game videos.
A: Their are other games, made by other companies, who might not decide to do this.
C: Nintendo is not actually shutting any accounts down.
At some point, you either start repeating yourself or it turns into a podcast with BOI visuals and sound effects.
Well that's kind of what it is.
I mean he does challenge runs and stuff but at this point people who watch Northernlion watch him because he's funny, not because of the high docktane Binding of Isaac action.
It's like watching raocow, except Northernlion is significantly less purplemonkeycheese and is from a different part of Canada.
I mean if I was a Star Wars makeup person or CGI guy, I might get annoyed with people walking up to me and making OHMYGAWD WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR FACE jokes and try to shut RLM down for making rape jokes over a movie he didn't make. Except this isn't even shutting anyone down, it's just stopping monetization.
Also, I expect that if this goes unchallenged we can expect Nintendo to try to enact similar things on more traditional game review sites, and no one wants that.
You're not seriously expecting me to side with developers because programmers' feelings might be hurt, are you?I've also already explained why stealing the ad revenue is worse than just taking down videos.
I mean, it's making money due to talking over videogames, how long did anyone think this was going to last as a serious career.
Can you link me to those explanations?
Which is...precisely what everyone affected is doing?
"hurr durr get a real job" in short, if they actually cared about defending their copyright they'd just take the videos down. They don't, and just want the ad revenue, hence why they are stealing it.I don't understand what about "it's not their money to take" is hard to get.
If it were just silent walkthroughs or something I might be more open to the idea, but that's not what we're talking about.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
oh man
I just got told I'm wrong.
what ever will I do.
RiffTraxi get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
yeah and afaik they usually do the latter which is basically a bit of legal finegeling.
would you be OK with it if Youtubers somehow monetized audiotracks that people could synch to gameplay footage via Synchtube or something?
Because literally all that's doing is adding an extra step.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
but that is functionally identical to what they're doing now, it's just harder to set up.
the only real difference is that Nintendo would also be getting money without cutting into the Youtubers' paychecks, which is great, but not how they're going about it, which is not.
and again, my point is not that Nintendo is somehow out of their legal rights to do this, it's that it's really stupid for them to do it, and it is.
The new X-box knows where you sleep, it is already in the process of live cloning you and your family.
You're being semantic.
I guess it is legally not stealing, but in my opinion, it's ethically equivalent to it.
edit: WHY ARE OUR QUOTE BLOCKS SO DUMB
this is what happens when you buy things from Xbox Live Indie Games.i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I'm not sure I follow. Were you presenting your solution as identical or near identical from what is going on now? Because it's substantially different, assuming the game-play videos already existed, that is.
If not functionally the same, it's very similar. All you're doing at that point is splitting the content into two videos.
Well I think the idea is that the video of the gameplay footage would get monetized by the company and the the commentary by the LPer, but in practice, I'm really not confident that that would work.also "contentcontent".
this would probably actually sell OK.
it'd be better than the Ouya at any rate.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Well you could probably just split the video in two in post.
But aside from making LPs more difficult to watch in general, I'm pretty confident that companies being companies would simply take down the footage videos if they couldn't monetize everything, which would eventually lead to someone's channel getting axed.
Even if they didn't, having half of your own videos monetized by someone else makes getting a partnership with any of the couple companies that deal in LPs a very thorny issue. Which is the only way anyone makes sizable amounts of money off of Lets Playing.