I wonder how SSB survived without his help. It's a tragic day, the day in which Angry Joe won't cover his 3rd Nintendo game in years.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
AngryJoe receives a Nintendo copyright claim. Hope they enjoyed the ad revenue; Done
- Thread starter Khalifa Jayy
- Start date
I wonder how SSB survived without his help. It's a tragic day, the day in which Angry Joe won't cover his 3rd Nintendo game in years.
The whole copyright and fair use needs to change period in this day and age it's still vague as hell and doesn't fit the digital age. Even Content ID on youtube is shoot first and maybe ask questions later. Also nintendo defense force is hilarious here.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Nintendo policies means that they got a good chunk of the ad revenue of the video.
As long Nintendo gets money, is fine.
I don't think Nintendo gives a shit about the ad revenue. It's about protecting their properties and the coverage their games are getting. They build up relations with media companies and figures (including YouTubers) they like, while discarding others they don't think spread the message they want to spread.
Was this actually a takedown notice? Or more so a "All ad revenue from this video will go to Nintendo, but the video can remain up".
Because I'm finding it hard to follow with the back and forth accusations of "Nintendo Defence Force/Apologists and/or AngryJoe Defence Force/Apologists" talk.
Moral Panic
Member
Content ID does nothing to your account. I've got over a dozen.
DMCA/Copyright strike is what you need to be worried about, if you get 3 they nuke your account.
I don't know of anyone outside of butthurt garbage devs doing DMCA strikes right now (usually to Jim Sterling or Total Biscuit)
You sure told him.My response:
axisofweevils
Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
My response:
I actually wish someone would do that. It would really show the hypocrisy at work.
The fact that he got fans to buy him a Wii U makes this extra crappy.
Giant Bomb and other sites who do quick look style content. Giant Bomb is now doing a "Let's Play" of all the numbered Metal Gear Solid games behind a paywall. Difference is that they're not dependent on Youtube.
Yes I am because it clearly means different things today.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
I wonder how much Wii U sold this gen compared to Wii and how much extra coverage and awareness could be beneficial for a console that is struggling in the market.
Leafhopper
Banned
It's not one of those though. It's one that simply says you can't make money off this video.
If you get 3 actual takedown notices they suspend your account.
Joe for years played only Xbox 360 and PC games exclusively on his channel until recently. He started to branch out with PS4 and then the WiiU a few months ago. I'm sure he wanted to just show everyone on his channel of him and his friends playing MP10 but, Nintendo doesn't like people doing this on Youtube. I'm sure he's used to being able to put up any videos of him playing games or using assets on their so he's not used to Nintendo's backward policies. Sucks he wants to branch out and play the non bro-op or strategy games but Nintendo gonna be Nintendo.
My response:
Are you going to create new content with his content or just blatantly copy/paste? Because theres quite a difference.
PirateKing
Junior Member
I seriously can't believe it's this bad on Neogaf. Thought it'd be, less?
TheSlySoul
Member
Pick any from the Gawker network. They mostly gather news information.
Also funny enough the Web show I watch that riffs on crazy news is on Blip and had no issues at all. Wonder why? Oh right, Blip.tv is pretty good about copyright law.
Now on the issue I think he should still owe his fans Wii U videos. Just have it be a perk signing up his site. Still get money via ads.
Cbajd5
Member
No, the only time they affect your account at all is if they're blocked from being viewed worldwide. That is, they essentially take the video down. Nintendo's claims just stop you from monetizing it, so there is literally no affect on your account except you don't make money off that particular video. (The thing to really worry about are Copyright Strikes, as too many of those will get your account taken down. But these are Content ID claims, not Copyright Strikes. Even those go away eventually too.)
Death Metalist
Member
He can upload Nintendo related videos as long as he doesn't monetize them right? Well, if he really cares to show the audience the content then just upload it with the monetize option off. I enjoy his videos so he should consider this option.
KojiKnight
Member
If you don't claim ads, NIntendo will put ads and monetize them for themself... Had this happen on a couple occasions.
I get it now, Wii U is dead because Angry Joe didn't cover it until the fans gave him money to buy one. It's nice that he helped Wii sell that much, though.
It is not even "you can't make money of that" , it's "the money you make will be our money instead"
You should go back and read the thread about the announcement of Nintendo's new Youtube program.
My response:
How is this "embarrassing"?
What's embarrassing is that some people in this thread, don't know what Capitalism is.
EA, Activision, Konami, Gearbox - any publisher, or developer could do this, at *any* time. It is just that currently, they decide not to.
If Angry Joe doesn't like it, he should set up an institution, with other Let's Players and YouTube broadcasters, form of set of rules that you want developers and publishers to follow, and negotiate with them, to be paid through that institution.
If it is independent of these developers and publishers, that will give you the most control.
He should stop relying on YouTube, and then complaining.
Lastly, to everyone in this thread, if you can't think of anything constructive to say, in response to this, then don't bother.
Also this.
Nintendo has yet to outright "take down" a video that's critical of their games.
As you said, only garbage Steam devs that believe their test game made in Unity is good enough to sell are the ones that take down critical videos. Since Jim and TB usually cover those types of games, they're the ones that get hit the most by butthurt devs.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
No, you clearly don't.
Anyone unironically using Nintendo Defense Force isn't here to have a valid discussion about this.
The way I'm understand this, AngryJoe is Angry that Nintendo wants 100% of the ad revenue from this one video, since it's not on their list of approved games for revenue sharing, but they didn't actually take down the video.
Joe took his ball and went home by setting the video to private, even though Nintendo was fine with letting the video stay up. While that 1 video wouldn't generate revenue, it still would've generated traffic for Joe himself, feeding into his other videos and ultimately making him money.
So I don't get why he's throwing a hissy fit, other than a warped sense of entitlement.
The way I'm understand this, AngryJoe is Angry that Nintendo wants 100% of the ad revenue from this one video, since it's not on their list of approved games for revenue sharing, but they didn't actually take down the video.
Joe took his ball and went home by setting the video to private, even though Nintendo was fine with letting the video stay up. While that 1 video wouldn't generate revenue, it still would've generated traffic for Joe himself, feeding into his other videos and ultimately making him money.
So I don't get why he's throwing a hissy fit, other than a warped sense of entitlement.
Furfuryl Furforate
Banned
Technically he isn't saying they are in the wrong just that he won't agree to their terms and as such not cover them anymore.
Buried beneath the hyperbole and anger.
Buried beneath the hyperbole and anger.
legacyzero
Banned
You gotta wake up, Nintendo. You're so tight on your IP, that you're willing to lose the goodwill you create to protect it. Even those that don't stand to make money off of it.
How could you not be SUPER flattered that somebody spends their time showing love and passion towards your IP? It blows my mind! So while people like Notch are swimming in pools of money in part because Youtubers, you're unable to realize that it's a real thing.
What's cheaper? Not earning a small amount of money because some person made a video about your property? Or millions in marketing budget?
How could you not be SUPER flattered that somebody spends their time showing love and passion towards your IP? It blows my mind! So while people like Notch are swimming in pools of money in part because Youtubers, you're unable to realize that it's a real thing.
What's cheaper? Not earning a small amount of money because some person made a video about your property? Or millions in marketing budget?
Exactly.
razgriz417
Member
Doesn't nintendo have to "approve" the Nintendo related videos on his account? If so that's some shady ass shit
Leafhopper
Banned
He can still upload that video of him and his friends having fun. Without making ad revenue on it. Heck did you even look at the image?
Why bother if he can't make money off it to make up the time and effort editing the video?
Ah yes, that's true.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Yeah, if they don't like the video, they won't allow it.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
Indeed. He and youtubers like him have been getting away with taking 100% of ad revenue that they didn't deserve. Nintendo has been extremely gracious with their 60/40 split program. If you don't want to sign up then you get nothing because you deserve nothing.
Blackage
Member
My response:
Are you gonna follow this up with a Youtube video showing how complex the AI in The Order 1866 is next?
The fact of the matter is people playing games and posting them on youtube channels is mutually beneficial for both the Youtuber and Publisher.
If the norm was all publishers were blocking all youtubers from posting playthroughs of their games then I could see the argument some of you are making that Joe should be grateful people make games for him to play and make a living off of and ALLOWING him to do what he does. The fact of the matter is the only people who do takedown notices like this nowadays are A) Douchebag developers who make really shitty games(See the ones who harass Jim Sterling), and B) Nintendo, because they're Nintendo and they have no idea how the internet works in 2015 and live in their own bubble.
Joe is going to be fine without Nintendo, Joe has BEEN fine without Nintendo, he only recently even considered playing Nintendo games and posting videos about them, and now he won't anymore, Joe isn't going to hurt because of this, he has 2 million subs and has tons of other shit he can post. Nintendo however just lost the eyes of potential customers for quite frankly a shitty Mario Party game that could use some positive exposure.
razgriz417
Member
And isn't that shady as shit for a developer to do?
SneakyStephan
Banned
You people do realise that google is making money off of all these videos as well right? If you're going to argue that there shouldn't be ads on youtube to begin with then I agree.
I think youtube monetisation in general is stupid and is corrupting most youtube reviewers/opinions and their motives.
But some of you are arguing that only nintendo should be monetising any of these reviews/let's plays and whatnot.
So basically you want everyone who talks about games on youtube to be directly beholden to nintendo (or other publishers) instead of doing it independently
Yeah that's not going to go terribly wrong for gamers and consumer at all /s
The only way to keep youtube gaming content honest and valuable to gamers is to remove monetisation alltogether, so that it reverts back to being a community thing (like it used to be) instead of being a mini industry on its own.
Monetising youtube videos in general is just as fucking stupid as monetising steam reviews, especially when the money has to pass through the publishers first.
Angry joe already admits to doing a bunch of paid content deals with publishers, nintendo's way of 'partnering up' with streamers is just the next step in making these videos pure marketing instead of an independant objective source of information.
If angry joe and his peers just become arthur gies or major nelson (paid shills/PR) then it no longer serves any function (unless you live in some kind of idiocracy world where the idea of PR and entertainment merging into one sounds like a good idea, in which case I feel sorry for you)
I think youtube monetisation in general is stupid and is corrupting most youtube reviewers/opinions and their motives.
But some of you are arguing that only nintendo should be monetising any of these reviews/let's plays and whatnot.
So basically you want everyone who talks about games on youtube to be directly beholden to nintendo (or other publishers) instead of doing it independently
Yeah that's not going to go terribly wrong for gamers and consumer at all /s
The only way to keep youtube gaming content honest and valuable to gamers is to remove monetisation alltogether, so that it reverts back to being a community thing (like it used to be) instead of being a mini industry on its own.
Monetising youtube videos in general is just as fucking stupid as monetising steam reviews, especially when the money has to pass through the publishers first.
Angry joe already admits to doing a bunch of paid content deals with publishers, nintendo's way of 'partnering up' with streamers is just the next step in making these videos pure marketing instead of an independant objective source of information.
If angry joe and his peers just become arthur gies or major nelson (paid shills/PR) then it no longer serves any function (unless you live in some kind of idiocracy world where the idea of PR and entertainment merging into one sounds like a good idea, in which case I feel sorry for you)
That's a very disparaging way of putting it. Angry Joe also has to manage production/editing of his video content; certainly more than "sitting on his ass playing games". Why shouldn't he be able to make money enjoying one of his hobbies?
Huh? I didn't realize that IGN owns Xenoblande Chronicles, Mortal Kombat, GTA etc....
Do any of you know how news works? Fair use? anything???
Yes, I clearly do.
we can continue this overly mature argument as long as you want.
TheSlySoul
Member
Viacom is pretty terrible for DMCA claims. This one guy got his channel suspended and then got it back because he was within fair use. He reviewed TV shows. Also did not make any money and the company forced ads on his video. All in all Youtube is a terrible place to try to make money via entertainment content.
Did you really not understand what he was saying? For a console doing as poorly as the WiiU, any extra coverage or awareness could help the console. Angry Joe making a positive WiiU video for a couple million viewers is almost like spending hundreds of thousands on a TV commercial for the same size audience.
The fact that people are actually defending Nintendo's YouTube copyright bullshit is just ridiculous. Is it just corporate fanboyism at this point?
Furfuryl Furforate
Banned
My response:
That's not how this works, you'd have to record yourself watching the video then you'd have an analogy.
PirateKing
Junior Member
To be honest, a lot of comments here are just drive by posts and try to make fun of Joe that's unnecessary and straight up offensive. That's my only problem. It's not just one or two comments.
Is thus /s ? Because I don't think you know how Youtube work.
Charlie0108
Member
Nintendo's YouTube policy is backwards but it's hard to side with AJ when he act so entitled about the whole thing. If I was a fan of his I'm not sure I'd be happy about him caring more about whether he makes money on a small portion of his video than the content that his fans actually want to see. It's not even like he paid for the console himself.