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

[S-U-P-E-R]

What I mean is, the LPer posts two videos; straight gameplay footage that Nintendo will pull revenue from, and a strictly commentary video meant to be played simultaneously. One that Nintendo can't make a claim on.

[oohhboy]

You would still have a problem with Nintendo profiting off someone elses work. There is no definded line where Nintendo's work becomes the LPer's and vis versa.

It doesn't help that Nintendo is in need for good news.

[NWR_insanolord]

LP's would fall under fair use and derivative works. The work has been transformed where the LP has their own copyright on the resulting work. In essence it is now Nintendo profiting off other peoples copyrighted work.

There's a reason something like RiffTrax makes you buy the commentary separately from the movie, and it's the same reason I can't rent a DVD and charge people to watch it in my living room. Playing through a piece of copyrighted work and making a profit off it isn't fair use.

Nintendo is entirely within their legal rights to do what they're doing, and I find it astonishing that people don't see how Nintendo has a point here. I still think it's a bad move, as it does more harm to their public image and perception than the money they'll get is worth, but legally and ethically I see no problem with what Nintendo's doing here.

[oohhboy]

Rifftrax is different. There is no transformation. The commentator's work is clearly definable. Games aren't movies that play exactly the same everytime. It's not like a Rifftraxer can jump in to a movie to change the resulting events without destroying the movie and the entire purpose of the Rifftrax.

I just don't think it is as black and white as you make it out to be. I see it as a donut hole in copyright that needs filling. If you have a read through the link you will see where the LPer has their legal footing.

[NWR_insanolord]

I've never seen a Let's Play that involved what seemed to be significant creative input from the person playing. I could see there being some games where you could make that argument, for instance something competitive where the product is the players' strategies and tactics, or maybe something like speedruns where there's creativity in devising the plan, but for most games, or at least most of Nintendo's games, I can't see the player being enough of a participant in it to be deserving of pay. They are wholly dependent on the work of Nintendo.

[oohhboy]

Part of the problem is that there is no definition as what "significant" is. If the player isn't deserving of pay, the question then moves to why should Nintendo be deserving of pay? Maybe it's one of those situations which neither are deserving of pay. Also there is a question of how far this extends. Currently it is confine to YouTube, but what happens if your website you are hosting your LP on and you are recieving Ad revenue from that? Is Nintendo deserving in this case? If it wasn't YouTube allowing this, it wouldn't be an issue.

Given the astronomical amount of work needed for a video LP to meet your criteria, I don't think there is a matching video example of this screenshot LP of Animal Crossing.

[Fjurbanski]

Rifftrax is different. There is no transformation. The commentator's work is clearly definable. Games aren't movies that play exactly the same everytime. It's not like a Rifftraxer can jump in to a movie to change the resulting events without destroying the movie and the entire purpose of the Rifftrax.

For certain games you can make that argument. Something like Minecraft is so open ended that each playthrough can be a creatively unique experience.


But what about a game like Portal? Can anyone really make the claim that it's a unique work when player X puts the blue portal before the orange portal, but player Y does the opposite?


There are plenty of games that are so linear that you can hardly consider a slight deviation to be transformative work.

[oohhboy]

That is a self solving problem. A game like Portal is linear, but if the LPer can't make it interesting enough, it's not going to get enough views to get monetized. Any good LP of a game like Portal is either going to be a speedrun, glitch/tool-assist run or a complete secret + alternate solution + commentary run. Then there are your internet stars that have their own fan bases that do things like drunk runs or non-gamer blind/fail runs that can be quite funny and different. Plus for videogames we don't really know where the line is when something becomes a transformative work.

While previously the problem by in large solved itself by using the number of views as the base metric, the new framework makes no distinction how unique something is. While the previous regime might have been sided somewhat towards LPs, the new one is completely onesided for Nintendo. If you were to look into the "Justness" or "Fairness" of the situation the former is more fair than the latter.

[TJ Spyke]

I would give my opinion on this, but some butt-hurt posters (including a certain bully in this thread) would accuse me of being a corporate white knight. I will just say that Nintendo profiting off of their copyrighted videos is vastly better than their legal right to have the videos removed from YouTube (like most companies do).

[pokepal148]

i think they have a right to do this but at the same time people depend on those videos for their livelyhood,

[TJ Spyke]

i think they have a right to do this but at the same time people depend on those videos for their livelyhood,

I don't think there are any people making their sole income from advertising fees on YouTube videos. And even if they were, it's their own fault. Nintendo is within their right to have the videos just taken down because they are copyright violations, but Nintendo isn't doing that (a lot of game publishers and media companies in general are not so generous). If anybody is focusing on posting copyrighted videos on YouTube as their only way to make money, maybe they should try doing something original to make money.

I can't do something like buy DVDs and charge people to watch it, then expect to not get sued by the studios.

[oohhboy]

I would give my opinion on this, but some butt-hurt posters (including a certain bully in this thread) would accuse me of being a corporate white knight. I will just say that Nintendo profiting off of their copyrighted videos is vastly better than their legal right to have the videos removed from YouTube (like most companies do).

Stop being passive agressive and just spit it out.

i think they have a right to do this but at the same time people depend on those videos for their livelyhood,

I don't think there are any people making their sole income from advertising fees on YouTube videos. And even if they were, it's their own fault. Nintendo is within their right to have the videos just taken down because they are copyright violations, but Nintendo isn't doing that (a lot of game publishers and media companies in general are not so generous). If anybody is focusing on posting copyrighted videos on YouTube as their only way to make money, maybe they should try doing something original to make money.

I can't do something like buy DVDs and charge people to watch it, then expect to not get sued by the studios.

You have literally just ignored every post made in this thread so far. You have learned nothing.

[TJ Spyke]

Big surprise, less than a day after I really return and the bully returns to spout BS and attack me for no reason. I have read the thread and I have not ignored it, you are just bitter because I disagree with you.

[Oblivion]

TJ, like it has been said before in this thread, what an LPer adds to the game is the "original content". This could mean a different playstyle or just the commentary. If an LPer sucks, they fade into obscurity.


I follow a few very awesome LPers and I'd hate for them to be out of a job because a corporation wants to get rid of free advertising.

[TJ Spyke]

Find me anyone who makes a living off of these videos (and for the record, they are still using copyrighted content). Nintendo is not forcing these videos now (like they legally could), they are just making sure others don't profit off of Nintendo's IPs. People can still make these videos and post them.

[Fjurbanski]

That is a self solving problem. A game like Portal is linear, but if the LPer can't make it interesting enough, it's not going to get enough views to get monetized. Any good LP of a game like Portal is either going to be a speedrun, glitch/tool-assist run or a complete secret + alternate solution + commentary run. Then there are your internet stars that have their own fan bases that do things like drunk runs or non-gamer blind/fail runs that can be quite funny and different. Plus for videogames we don't really know where the line is when something becomes a transformative work.

While previously the problem by in large solved itself by using the number of views as the base metric, the new framework makes no distinction how unique something is. While the previous regime might have been sided somewhat towards LPs, the new one is completely onesided for Nintendo. If you were to look into the "Justness" or "Fairness" of the situation the former is more fair than the latter.

Ultimately, I agree. But at the same time... No one has any reason to play or buy portal after having watched an LP of it. So regardless of original content or fair use or any of that stuff, it's most likely detrimental to sales in the case of certain games.

[oohhboy]

If you are watching an LP, you probaly weren't going to/couldn't/wouldn't buy/play it in the first place or have already brought it and watching it for the unique experience the LPer offered. That is certainly why I watch an LP. So if I was never a possible sale in the first place, it was never determinatel to sales.

[Fjurbanski]

The point is that with certain games the LP can be seen as an alternative to buying the game, much like watching a movie online for free is an alternative to buying the movie. And if that's the case, they can't really be considered fair use regardless of how much original content they have. So, should LPers be allowed to make money off of those videos, or even put them up in the first place?

[oohhboy]

Then we come back to the point where the LPer's work isn't like a movie at all and we all go around and around again. It stops being fair use issue and becomes one of transformation/derivative work.

Here is an interesting example. It is "almost" the complete run of the FMV game Critical Path with the few "Interactive" elements that youtube can't emulate stripped out of it. The uploader has basically ported the game to a new format.

We just don't have a line in the sand to say one way or the other. It's neither legal or illegal. It's currently only exists as policy on Youtube.

[azeke]

If you are watching an LP, you probaly weren't going to/couldn't/wouldn't buy/play it in the first place or have already brought it and watching it for the unique experience the LPer offered.

Just to add to discussion i sometimes watch Let's Plays when i stuck in the game. It's faster than reading up on wikis or playthroughs or something.

[Chad Sexington]

I've watched many Let's Plays from this console generation.  Youtube and Twitch are the only ways I get to see the content from these games because I am strictly a handheld gamer these days.  I don't ever play on owning a console or TV ever again.  I know it's my choice to not buy a console, TV, and game to see these games, but I was never a potential buyer in the first place.

I guess my point is that if Nintendo shuts down all Twitch streams featuring Nintendo content, I guess I'll just have to hear about games through podcasts.

Podcast Idea: A retroactive type podcast that features newly released games, fully spoiled, advertised as a spoilercast.  I know The Axe Factor has begun doing something like this ("Postmortem") and a Twtich channel named A-Move TV has begun doing this with less recent titles ("Campaign Round Table"), but they focus on story.

I would be interested in listening to this podcast exclusively for Nintendo games if it were ever made.

[pokepal148]

If you are watching an LP, you probaly weren't going to/couldn't/wouldn't buy/play it in the first place or have already brought it and watching it for the unique experience the LPer offered. That is certainly why I watch an LP. So if I was never a possible sale in the first place, it was never determinatel to sales.

my copy of kirby super star ultra says hi
same with mario rpg on the vc(with 1.50 added on for the Wii U upgrade)
links awakening also says hi
donkey kong 94 sends its regards as well

honestly some of the biggest names in this whole lets play deal are nintendo gamers.

[Xero!]

Hey guys,
Have you heard? RayWilliamJohnson, reviewer of viral videos, is having his videos tagged by several Youtubers whose videos he has reviewed. This way, instead of him getting paid for his work in reviewing the videos, the Youtubers will get all of the money that he used to be paid for =3. Their argument is, without their videos, he wouldn't have a show.


Oh wait, sorry. That's not happening. Because those Youtubers actually appreciated the added publicity =3 gave them.


To all those defending Nintendo on this, do you NOW see why this is unfair after I gave that example?

[TJ Spyke]

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).

[UncleBob]

Did Nintendo claim Content ID on all videos, or just the ones that the creators had already agreed to have ads put on?