Author Topic: Nintendo Putting Content ID Claims on 'Let's Play' and Game Coverage Videos on YouTube (Read 25959 times)

Fatty The Hutt · « **Reply #75 on:** May 30, 2013, 11:25:48 AM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on May 29, 2013, 11:04:10 PM

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.

There's that word again.
Tell me TJ, through what Bar Association are you licenced to practice? Where did you go to law school? Did they have a nice cafeteria? Or maybe you retained counsel and got a legal opinion that way. What firm did the opinion? Can you post the executive summary for us?

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #76 on:** May 30, 2013, 11:36:45 AM »

Xero, stop trolling. You think you are making me mad by acting like anyone smarter than me has replied?

UB, I thought I answered you but maybe I didn't. For those not profiting from it, I do still think it should be done.

pokepal, you are wrong. The game is still the same, them just playing it doesn't change. There is a reason artists have to get legal permission to sample a song, even though it's just a tiny portion of a song and they are changing it. The entire game is copyrighted, under your logic a company would not be able to enforce a copyright at all. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Using your logic, a fan mod of a game is legal because it's different. If I take a Mario game and make his hair blond, can I sell that game since it's not the same? No, because it would still be a copyright violation. Your argument doesn't work.

Super, what is the point of your post? Nintendo is not taking the videos down at all. And I have seen many companies, good and bad, have videos taken down if they violate copyrights. The videos are not being taken down (though you are wrong in saying it's not illegal to upload the videos, those people are violating copyright laws), Nintendo is just getting money from ads that play before them (which shouldn't matter anyways since there are plenty of ad-blockers out there, I haven't seen ads on YouTube in years because of it).

UncleBob · « **Reply #77 on:** May 30, 2013, 12:47:40 PM »

...so, you're mooching off of YouTube and everyone who works to post videos on there?

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #78 on:** May 30, 2013, 06:10:19 PM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on May 30, 2013, 11:36:45 AM

The videos are not being taken down (though you are wrong in saying it's not illegal to upload the videos, those people are violating copyright laws),

Fair use covers commentary/criticism/research/etc. A court would have to rule on it before it would be considered illegal.

pokepal148 · « **Reply #79 on:** May 30, 2013, 06:24:44 PM »

Quote from: UncleBob on May 30, 2013, 12:47:40 PM

...so, you're mooching off of YouTube and everyone who works to post videos on there?

?

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #80 on:** May 30, 2013, 07:16:13 PM »

Quote from: S-U-P-E-R on May 30, 2013, 06:10:19 PM

Quote from: TJ Spyke on May 30, 2013, 11:36:45 AM
The videos are not being taken down (though you are wrong in saying it's not illegal to upload the videos, those people are violating copyright laws),

Fair use covers commentary/criticism/research/etc. A court would have to rule on it before it would be considered illegal.

Fair use has a limit though, 20+ minutes seems obviously far outside the limit. There is a reason you can only include a few seconds of a song before you have to pay royalties. With a game, even 20 minutes goes far beyond what is acceptable under the fair use doctrine.

nickmitch · « **Reply #81 on:** May 30, 2013, 07:23:46 PM »

Can you cite?

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #82 on:** May 30, 2013, 07:28:45 PM »

I don't think so. Fair use isn't about what arbitrary amount "seems" fair. It's not for you or I to decide; it would have to be left up to a court decision.

pokepal148 · « **Reply #83 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:26:03 PM »

So your saying these people mooch off of nintendos work when your mooching off of youtube itself...

And by using Adblock you are technically breaking youtubes TOS and thus following illegal activity punishable by the CFFA,

Tj, why don't you get down off your high horse....

nickmitch · « **Reply #84 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:33:22 PM »

Can you cite where in the YouTube TOS it says no adblocking?

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #85 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:50:55 PM »

Quote from: nickmitch on May 30, 2013, 08:33:22 PM

Can you cite where in the YouTube TOS it says no adblocking?

BINGO

Pokepal, the YouTube TOS mentions nothing regarding adblockers. So try again:

http://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

Besides, almost no YouTube videos have ads (the only ones I watch that have ads are Vevo videos).

pokepal148 · « **Reply #86 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:06:37 PM »

well advertisements are not specifically named but there is several parts in there that could be moved in that direction

Quote

You agree not to use or launch any automated system, including without limitation...

i do believe adblock is an automatic system, Tj, care to enlighten me on this?

Quote

You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Service

and ads are part of the service...
---
considering google removed an ad block app from the play store a few months back you are walking on very thin ice regardless

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #87 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:11:03 PM »

Considering I am using Google's web browser (Chrome), if they didn't want me to use it they would not allow it.

And regarding your first point, if you read on you would see that they are referring to systems that let you access videos in a way a human can't (i.e. boost a view count for videos).

pokepal148 · « **Reply #88 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:18:30 PM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on May 30, 2013, 09:11:03 PM

Considering I am using Google's web browser (Chrome), if they didn't want me to use it they would not allow it.

And regarding your first point, if you read on you would see that they are referring to systems that let you access videos in a way a human can't (i.e. boost a view count for videos).

yes they were, but i happened to see a little word called any followed by the words "including"

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #89 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:41:28 PM »

Again, read that paragraph. It says any automatic system that accesses the Service in a manner that sends more request messages to the YouTube servers in a given period of time

nickmitch · « **Reply #90 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:43:46 PM »

pokepal, I wouldn't call the ad a "service" that YouTube provides.

Spyke, I believe I asked a citation from you as well.

pokepal148 · « **Reply #91 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:49:30 PM »

fine forget it, anything to say for this?

Quote

You agree not to circumvent, disable or otherwise interfere with security-related features of the Service or features that prevent or restrict use or copying of any Content or enforce limitations on use of the Service or the Content therein.

Quote from: nickmitch on May 30, 2013, 09:43:46 PM

pokepal, I wouldn't call the ad a "service" that YouTube provides.

Google would, and if you get in a legal issue you will be facing them.

UncleBob · « **Reply #92 on:** May 30, 2013, 10:09:51 PM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on May 30, 2013, 09:11:03 PM

Considering I am using Google's web browser (Chrome), if they didn't want me to use it they would not allow it.

WHAT?

That's like saying "If Nintendo didn't want me to use a Flash card on my DS, they wouldn't allow it."

Just because a third party makes an add-on for the browser, it doesn't mean the first party is "allowing" it.

And yes, This degree-less armchair lawyer feels a case could be made to say that using Ad Blocking software is against the ToS of YouTube.

Quote

the YouTube website or any YouTube products, software, data feeds, and services provided to you on, from, or through the YouTube website (collectively the "Service")

Ads on Youtube are, without a doubt, a part of what they call "the Service".

By using AdBlock, you are modifying how the service is provided to you, circumventing the process they have in place to deliver content to you.

nickmitch · « **Reply #93 on:** May 31, 2013, 12:35:16 AM »

Are the ads on buses part of the service that the bus provides? I would argue not. I think it's the same with YouTube. Ads, if anything, hinder the experience of the services for which I visit the site. But as Ian once said, I accept them as part of the agreement for a free service. However, the temptation to and ease of avoiding the ads is too great for a chap like me. Though, Google's laissez-faire attitude towards their browser isn't exactly the same as the company saying that it's ok.

UncleBob · « **Reply #94 on:** May 31, 2013, 01:20:33 AM »

Does the bus have a "Terms of Service" that specifies anything about "data feeds" being a part of the service they provide to you?

pokepal148 · « **Reply #95 on:** May 31, 2013, 08:41:48 AM »

Google sees ads as part of their services, and i've heard a few Ben Franklins can be very convincing in the courts.

Adrock · « **Reply #96 on:** May 31, 2013, 08:57:15 AM »

A few Ben Franklins? Like they all had the same name? That's amazing! What are the chances?

pokepal148 · « **Reply #97 on:** May 31, 2013, 09:05:28 AM »

yeah, these ones

Adrock · « **Reply #98 on:** May 31, 2013, 09:12:00 AM »

Quote from: pokepal148 on May 31, 2013, 09:05:28 AM

yeah, these ones

Facepalm your mom, you took my last post seriously...

Close this thread.

pokepal148 · « **Reply #99 on:** May 31, 2013, 02:14:04 PM »

horrible wording ftw, i should have said "they provide very rich company"

News:

Author Topic: Nintendo Putting Content ID Claims on 'Let's Play' and Game Coverage Videos on YouTube (Read 25959 times)