Topic: Nintendo Putting Content ID Claims on 'Let's Play' and Game Coverage Videos on YouTube

[Xero!]

Actually, it's not unfair at all. Why should people get paid for someone else's work? Whether you think it's fair or not, those people are committing copyright violations. Instead of having YouTube take those videos down (which is within Nintendo's legal right), they are just rightfully getting the ad revenue from them (not that it's much anyways). The videos can stills stay up. And your example is faulty because you can review something without breaking the law (fair use doesn't apply when you have 20+ minutes of copyrighted content).

Actually, Nintendo themselves saw nothing wrong with it when they outright complemented "TheRunawayGuys" on their work (free advertising etc.). The backstabbing which we are discussing now came later. Plus, Youtube themselves has no problem with allowing partners to gain ad revenue from gameplay which has commentary, graphics and other things that makes the experience unique as opposed to JUST gameplay.

[TJ Spyke]

It's not backstabbing to not want moochers to financially benefit from playing games that are copyrighted by someone else. If anything, you should be praising Nintendo for allowing these copyright violating videos to stay up. There is no justification in thinking these people should profit from them. It's enough that they are allowed to keep the videos up.

And you mention YouTube not having a problem? DUH. YouTube doesn't care about legality of videos and only remove copyright violations when the owner files a complaint. Hell, when YouTube started the owners gleefully told each other that having illegally uploaded videos would help the site grow.

[UncleBob]

TJ - you keep making a claim, but I'm not sure I agree with it.  Is Nintendo only putting content ID claims on videos where the video maker already had ads on them?  I.e.: If I put up a Let's Play with no ads, will Nintendo still Content ID it?

[TJ Spyke]

TJ - you keep making a claim, but I'm not sure I agree with it.  Is Nintendo only putting content ID claims on videos where the video maker already had ads on them?  I.e.: If I put up a Let's Play with no ads, will Nintendo still Content ID it?

Based on the original story, it sounds like Nintendo could do it with any video that features their copyrighted content, not just ones with ads already in them (which makes sense because ones without ads are still violating copyright laws).

[Fatty The Hutt]

because ones without ads are still violating copyright laws).

This is your considered legal opinion, is it? Come to think of it, you have made a lot of claims in this thread about so-and-so violating copyright laws. I think maybe the basis of Nintendo's decision pre-supposes this,  but I submit to you, learned friend, that the issue is open and wholly arguable for either side.

[pokepal148]

TJ part of the issue is that many Lets Plays have long since passed the line where they can possibly be considered 'Transformative Work'.

[TJ Spyke]

Fatty, you really think having 20 minutes+ of copyrighted content is not violating copyright laws? Please explain how it is "fair use".

Games are interactive, but just playing the content already in the game is not transformative work. Adding commentary doesn't change that.

[UncleBob]

TJ - you keep making a claim, but I'm not sure I agree with it.  Is Nintendo only putting content ID claims on videos where the video maker already had ads on them?  I.e.: If I put up a Let's Play with no ads, will Nintendo still Content ID it?

Based on the original story, it sounds like Nintendo could do it with any video that features their copyrighted content, not just ones with ads already in them (which makes sense because ones without ads are still violating copyright laws).

But you keep name calling - like "moochers".  If I made a Let's Play and did not monitize it, how would I be mooching?

[King of Twitch]

omw, who cares. Who even has time to watch a video of a whole videogame besides final fantasy fans

[Xero!]

It's not backstabbing to not want moochers to financially benefit from playing games that are copyrighted by someone else. If anything, you should be praising Nintendo for allowing these copyright violating videos to stay up. There is no justification in thinking these people should profit from them. It's enough that they are allowed to keep the videos up.

[size=78%]I'm sure by now you have been told (although you insist on ignoring it) that this is transformative work. You take an established product and do work on it and it is then okay to make money from it. LP-ers actually have to do lots of work to be successful. It is NOT an easy thing to do. (Investment, recording, syncing, converting, etc.) Although Nintendo IS within their rights to do this, it is a slap in the face for all the work that they once upon a time complimented. It is like they are saying, "Remember all the days and nights you spent on your custom intros, your commentary, your editing, etc. just to advertise our products for us and help our clientele grow? Well, WE now want ALL of the money for that work."[/size]

[/size][size=78%]I don't know how else to explain this to you, TJ. Yes, Nintendo CAN do this but they should NOT do this cause of the repercussions. Yes, having them deleted would be better if anything.[/size]

omw, who cares. Who even has time to watch a video of a whole videogame besides final fantasy fans

[/size]

[/size][size=78%]Well, Zap, millions upon millions of Youtube viewers are subscribed to LP-ers. Maybe you don't have the time but clearly many others do.[/size]

[TJ Spyke]

How would having their "work" deleted be better than having it stay up? In another thread I saw people say "true" artists would perform for free. These people should not get to profit off of someone else's work, period.

It's NOT a slap in the face, if anything Nintendo is showing their appreciation by letting the videos stay up. They rightfully feel people should not be able to profit off of Nintendo's work. What these LP'ers do is not all that hard, and I have seen plenty of more people put in more work on stuff that ISN'T technically illegal, all for free. I am all for these people doing these videos, but don't think they should profit from it since they are doing little more than adding audio commentary to work they don't own.

[nickmitch]

I can't possibly fathom that the number of man hours Nintendo puts in to its games is any where near what goes in to making a YouTube video.

[Xero!]

All right! All right! Fine. Greed wins in this case, clearly. I can only imagine in a few years what companies will be able to get away with thanks to support such as this.


If you do your research, you'll be surprised to hear that reviews are being targetted as well. Yup! They are clearly going by the mentality, "If you get paid by doing ANYTHING related to our products, we do not want that. We want your money." So yeah, TJ, I guess Nintendo believes in your philosophy, "... people should not be able to profit off of someone else's work, PERIOD." This is why I used the RWJ example. It's only a matter of time before they find a loophole where they can attack sites such as this and IGN.

[UncleBob]

TJ - you keep making a claim, but I'm not sure I agree with it.  Is Nintendo only putting content ID claims on videos where the video maker already had ads on them?  I.e.: If I put up a Let's Play with no ads, will Nintendo still Content ID it?

Based on the original story, it sounds like Nintendo could do it with any video that features their copyrighted content, not just ones with ads already in them (which makes sense because ones without ads are still violating copyright laws).

But you keep name calling - like "moochers".  If I made a Let's Play and did not monitize it, how would I be mooching?

?

[pokepal148]

my issue isn't that nintendo gets money from these things, my issue is that the lets player does not. i don't watch these videos because they happen to be playing a nintendo game, i watch them because of the commentary, which can completely change the tone of the game being played. in the case of lets plays the commentator is what brings it to a level of transformative work, (I have seen Mario Party turned into a sadistic spectator sport,)

it isn't the game that makes a Lets Play great, its the player,

but i think we are getting a little riled up here perhaps we need to play a nice relaxing game of tetris

[NWR_insanolord]

By that logic I should be allowed to post an entire movie to YouTube and profit on it through ads as long as I add my own commentary track to it.

[pokepal148]

By that logic I should be allowed to post an entire movie to YouTube and profit on it through ads as long as I add my own commentary track to it.

that is the difficult thing, games by nature are interactive, it is virtually impossible to play through a game the same way as somebody else. the commentary is only half of the equation, the other half involves how the person plays the game (including dealing with the so called 'lets players' curse)

But this only shows even more a larger issue, that copyright laws have yet to really adapt to the internet....

[Fatty The Hutt]

Fatty, you really think having 20 minutes+ of copyrighted content is not violating copyright laws? Please explain how it is "fair use".

And give you free legal advice? Screw you, moocher!
Now, if you want to deposit a retainer to my PayPal account, you just let me know.

[Urkel]

Dorky Dorky Panic

[Xero!]

After some thought I figured I made a mistake going full steam ahead trying to get persons to understand my point of view based on my knowledge of the subject. Now, instead, I have a video for everyone to watch.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CvyRXjh7n4


It is an informative video by a Let's Player (NO he is not biased!) He gives info on the subject and is basically just trying to increase the understanding of what is going on. If you have 19 minutes, give it a watch. If you don't have 19 minutes, watch it later. Just watch all of it. A more informed world is better for all of us.

[TJ Spyke]

Xero, I understand you think people should be able to illegally profit off of others work. I disagree. What Nintendo is doing is a nice compromise.

[pokepal148]

oh for heavens sake Tj give it a rest,
honestly...
a game is an interactive experience
a lets-play is literally a specific player's experience in the recorded playthrough of a game with commentary. you cannot own the rights to a persons experience of a game.

tj tell me something
is it mooching for me to reply to your post?

[UncleBob]

Xero, I understand you think people should be able to illegally profit off of others work. I disagree. What Nintendo is doing is a nice compromise.

So... what about those who aren't profiting?  You still haven't answered that.

[S-U-P-E-R]

Xero, I understand you think people should be able to illegally profit off of others work. I disagree. What Nintendo is doing is a nice compromise.

It's not illegal to post videogame footage on Youtube. A game company can claim copyright if they want, sure, but virtually all non-shitty video game companies opt not to since it's better PR and probably better for business overall.

[Xero!]

Xero, I understand you think people should be able to illegally profit off of others work. I disagree. What Nintendo is doing is a nice compromise.

oh for heavens sake Tj give it a rest,
honestly...
a game is an interactive experience
a lets-play is literally a specific player's experience in the recorded playthrough of a game with commentary. you cannot own the rights to a persons experience of a game.

tj tell me something
is it mooching for me to reply to your post?

Xero, I understand you think people should be able to illegally profit off of others work. I disagree. What Nintendo is doing is a nice compromise.

It's not illegal to post videogame footage on Youtube. A game company can claim copyright if they want, sure, but virtually all non-shitty video game companies opt not to since it's better PR and probably better for business overall.

[/size]

I'm honestly starting to think that TJ just likes to give trouble even when people clearly smarter than him try to provide him with information. I put the video up. It explains everything in fine detail.


A person who bakes and sells cakes is profiting off of the work of the farmer who got the eggs and the person who manufactured the flour. It's not the best example but even a preschooler should be able to understand where I'm coming from.


TJ, watch the video, digest it, understand all sides and just give it a rest.