ArkhamFantasy
Member
What if he provided commentary to the Angry Joe video's?
-
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
What if he provided commentary to the Angry Joe video's?
I know we had a thread on whether let players deserve financial compensation awhile ago, but it saddens me to see people beating on the same argument not really getting it.
Angry Joe doesn't "deserve" anything. He's not entitled to anything. He doesn't "work" for anyone but himself. He made the choice to be self-employed.
He then took someone else's product, and tried to make money off if it.
We can have a back and forth discussion all day long on whether or not what he did is fair use, a transformative work, etc. etc. But that's beside the point itself.
Just because he chose to spend the time and effort making this video, doesn't mean he is now entitled to compensation for doing it. Society can decide for themselves whether or not they think he's worth something, but at the end of the day the default expected return on all his videos should be $0, and anything above that is a bonus.
Yes, being able to make a steady income off of this WOULD be pretty neat, and it's a dream that a lot of LPers seem to be aiming towards.
But the entitlement on display from thinking they are "owed" this money just because they did the work is disgusting.
Angry Joe doesn't "deserve" anything. He's not entitled to anything. He doesn't "work" for anyone but himself. He made the choice to be self-employed.
He then took someone else's product, and tried to make money off if it.
We can have a back and forth discussion all day long on whether or not what he did is fair use, a transformative work, etc. etc. But that's beside the point itself.
Just because he chose to spend the time and effort making this video, doesn't mean he is now entitled to compensation for doing it. Society can decide for themselves whether or not they think he's worth something, but at the end of the day the default expected return on all his videos should be $0, and anything above that is a bonus.
Yes, being able to make a steady income off of this WOULD be pretty neat, and it's a dream that a lot of LPers seem to be aiming towards.
But the entitlement on display from thinking they are "owed" this money just because they did the work is disgusting.
This isn't the case. It proves the first proposition but certainly not the second.
legacyzero
Banned
It's COMPLETELY comparable. Marketing money doesn't need to count in that those Indies didn't NEED to spend any, and yet, their game's blew up. And yeah, Nintendo DOES have that crazy, dedicated following. What about EVERYBODY ELSE?
If I'm on the fence about a game? Youtube. If I wanna know more about a game? Youtube. If I want opinions on a game? Youtube.
As a matter of fact, I've bought most of my games in the last year or so because of Youtube information.
Games will sell like FUCK solely because of Youtube and word of mouth.
How much marketing did Minecraft need? How much marketing did DayZ need? Those are just TWO of the driving examples.
???
Uhh.. It's actually showing that they can be beneficial to anyone. Giant publishers don't have games with bad reviews from popular sites?
EA made more copies of Skate 3 last year due to the game gaining popularity on YouTube.
SlowRevolution
Member
You guys sure showed him.
It's almost impressive that people still rush into these threads to make these jokes.
This whole "how dare you try to make money off of something you like doing" line of thinking is horrible.
Sure, that's one way to miss the point. There's plenty of other examples in the thread as well if you wanted to try one of those.
Dead on.
He runs a business, it's his job.
TheSlySoul
Member
I am guessing they may not be aggressive with content before Wii U/3DS which is why Game Grumps is safe.
HylianHero12
Member
This has to be an ploy for attention by this Angry Joe guy. Yes, I understand that he probably puts a lot of effort into his videos, but from reading the thread it sounds like he knew of the policy and acted against it anyway. Sounds like a publicity stunt and it makes it hard for me to feel sympathetic for the Let's Players that act entitled like he does.
I personally feel like Nintendo has every right to claim these videos, as they spent large sums of money and time developing the games. And they have to have some reason to make this decision, it's not like they have one person throwing darts at sticky notes on the wall for their PR decisions. There is some factor we aren't aware of that makes Nintendo deem that the decrease in Let's Play coverage of their games is worth it. And for some reason I don't think it's the small amount of ad revenue they would receive.
I don't typically watch Let's Play's, and when I do it's of games I have already played or games I do not intend to buy (like most in the horror genre), so that might affect my perspective on the idea that Let's Plays are free publicity for the publisher/developer.
I personally feel like Nintendo has every right to claim these videos, as they spent large sums of money and time developing the games. And they have to have some reason to make this decision, it's not like they have one person throwing darts at sticky notes on the wall for their PR decisions. There is some factor we aren't aware of that makes Nintendo deem that the decrease in Let's Play coverage of their games is worth it. And for some reason I don't think it's the small amount of ad revenue they would receive.
I don't typically watch Let's Play's, and when I do it's of games I have already played or games I do not intend to buy (like most in the horror genre), so that might affect my perspective on the idea that Let's Plays are free publicity for the publisher/developer.
Ah thank you, that is the information I was missing, I can see why that is bad.
I still think the youtube let's play's need to catch up with the rest of society's copyright laws. We can't upload films to youtube or other public places with some quiet commentary, why are videogames different? I can find entire silent play-thoughs of games on youtube!
I know reviews and such are different and I can see how Nintendo's policy is outright wrong. Journalistic freedoms (to give bad reviews) shouldn't be stopped under copyright (although that's different from what's happened here).
Let's plays are different and we still need to figure out how to deal with them.
paragonpro
Banned
Look what Nintendo did may not have been cool, but they're not in the wrong, it's perfectly ok for a company to not be cool with people monetizing their product, it's reasonable and it's something every you tuber should know going in to the game.
Dr. Buni
Member
Job? Right...
I am one of the users who complain the most about Nintendo here (you can often see me bitching about the New 3DS or the idea of a new console next year) and I still think they are right on this subject.
pinkurocket
Member
Then why doesn't he create his own website to host his videos on, because Youtube is taking a chunk of his ad revenue as well. Is it really so 'evil' for a corporation to take a percentage of profits when someone is making money using their products? This just confuses me, I don't see a proper reason to get so upset. Nintendo is very anal about their IPs and the way they get exposure, sure. But whenever a creator cites profits as the main reason to boycott them, that is just too basic.
It's his job. Enjoying games doesn't pay the bills.
Hmm, well said. Basically agree with this.
Exterminieren
Banned
Nintendo' YouTube policies are embarrassingly out of touch and counter-intuitive.
Joe is throwing his toys out of the pram, and is peddling a line that is self-aggrandising at best, or absolutely delusional at worst.
No one looks good here.
Joe is throwing his toys out of the pram, and is peddling a line that is self-aggrandising at best, or absolutely delusional at worst.
No one looks good here.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
The fact big companies are using Youtubers and collaborating with them, should tell you that not only indie developers are benefitted from the publicity.
Thanks for selectively quoting - do you find my idea interesting, at all?
I don't think Angry Joe was constructive, since he didn't actually own the content that he was showing.
Your comment reads like some serious "get off my lawn" shit.
TheSlySoul
Member
Sonic the Hedgehog 06 was a platinum seller on Xbox 360.
Never underestimate bad PR helping.
I remember that campaign Microsoft had where they partnered with Youtube channels during the XBLA summer releases.
Funny enough they let them bad mouth Flashback. Ha ha.
Also EA partnering up with Game Grumps for Dead Space 3.
Joe's one of the coolest dudes out there. This thread turned into a 'do let's players deserve to get money instead of copyright lawsuits" right quick though.
I don't know the answer to these questions, its a tricky subject. But we do know that nobody else is doing this kind of thing like Nintendo is. And so they are the outlier here by saying only people who become Nintendo PR and do only Nintendo stuff can get off scott free.That's not right to me.
They don't have any moral stand a stand on their videos as long as they get to control the message and that's not right.
I don't know the answer to these questions, its a tricky subject. But we do know that nobody else is doing this kind of thing like Nintendo is. And so they are the outlier here by saying only people who become Nintendo PR and do only Nintendo stuff can get off scott free.That's not right to me.
They don't have any moral stand a stand on their videos as long as they get to control the message and that's not right.
Unless I'm mistaken, they left the video up. So Nintendo is fine with the publicity, just not ok with Joe making money off it.
PreFire
Member
Not that he's not playing them, just not recording editing and all the stuff that goes into lets plays.
It wouldn't make sense for him to put that time and effort into it without making money. Grown ups have bills and even if we don't agree with their jobs, it's still making a living.
Why would you, as a streamer, upload a video you won't make money off? Let me waste a whole day on this video just for someone else to make the money.
No thanks
But they aren't taking all of it.
I have zero sympathy for someone like Angry Joe when they run to Twitter to complain that a company flagged them with a copyright claim. I only see an issue when this happens to people who stream and share for fun. Joe Vargas, on the other hand, does this to make money. If Nintendo doesn't want someone piggybacking off their products like that, that's their choice to make, and it doesn't make them evil. Just because Sony and Microsoft have been more lax about it (or have they... I was flagged for The Order, and I don't monetize at all), doesn't mean Nintendo has to be, too.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I 100% agree.
It's not about the ad revenue here. If, let's say, Pewdiepie uploads a video for Mario Party 10 and he's having an absolute BLAST with some buddies then people will see that, people will watch it, and people will buy the game. That's what the argument here is.
How is this free money? Do the videos film, edit and upload themselves? Do they promote themselves? Some people need a reality check about what's involved here.
SilentRacoon
Member
A parasite, really? They are creating content that wouldn't exist otherwise, people enjoy the way some of them present the games, doing what he does may generate revenue for HIS work, but it also may set a positive perception of a game into his audience, which in the end (like it has been proven many times in this thread) would certainly result in a boost of its sales, without the publisher ever having to be involved in the whole process .
If anything Nintendo would be the perfect candidates for being called the parasites, they are trying to claim money for content that wouldn't exist in the first place if there wasn't people willing to do it. Nintendo expects to swallow the whole pie for themselves, while people freely create coverage for their products.
What if every publisher took this stupid instance in regards to Youtubers? Then what?
PirateKing
Junior Member
One of my friends was an editor and presentor of a website before he took on his music career. He used to complain how hard it can be at times esprcially around E3. Since he was mainly a one man army where he'd do most of the work unlike established websites like IGN for example have a huge crew covering everything.
It's a lot tougher being by yourself.
paragonpro
Banned
Angry joe sort of annoys me, he is the definition of sensationalist bs.
Moral Panic
Member
If it's in public then yes. Well, I'll admit the word "own" was wrong to use, but you have an exclusive licence to that video.
SlowRevolution
Member
He makes money by providing something people want. It's a job whether you want it to be or not.
Yes it's a job providing you entertainment and content. You enjoy youtube and twitch right? You follow also people right? It's there work to provide you with that the same thing they do on TV. Joe and any other youtuber it is there job to give you content. To even provide a game that can tingle your interest when there showing that game from that developer for potential consumers.
Leafhopper
Banned
Now I am picturing a Klefki with a beard and a cane in a rocking chair...
I find it hard to feel bad for guys who complain about the occasional frustrations of a life where they make exorbitant amounts of money playing video games, on a self-governed basis, and commenting on them.
Regardless of if Nintendo is right or not I think a lot of these dudes need to think for just a second about just how good they have it and just how frustrating most other avenues of employment can be.
Regardless of if Nintendo is right or not I think a lot of these dudes need to think for just a second about just how good they have it and just how frustrating most other avenues of employment can be.
To be clear, with "they discard people that don't spread the message they want to spread" I meant people with language and personalities they don't think reflect well on the products they're advertising, not "we will give Content ID:s on people who are critical of our games".
We have to remember Nintendo wants to be seen as a family friendly company. If kids or parents search for Nintendo-games online I imagine they want there to be good and safe places for them to get information on them. Therefore they encourage channels like Gamexplain and ProJared (who they trust will do good coverage without resorting to swearing), while being very strict on other channels.
So, while it's controlling the kind of coverage their games get, I don't see it as shady. As mentioned before, they are very generous when it comes to review embargoes. Whether this hurts Nintendo or not I cannot say (I think it might), but they're not shady in the slightest.
My response:
As long as you comment on the Videos i support that Idea.
I'm actually considering to do this, but i don't have the equipment for proper recording, and i'm not in the Situation to afford this anytime soon
Don't you know you're not allowed to enjoy your job /s
This. It's definitely a start.
No, it reads as you trying to make the analogy of an employer and employee. Like he's "working" for someone and is entitled to compensation from them (a normal work relationship)
Except he doesn't. He works for himself. And thus is not "entitled" to compensation from anyone.
fabricated backlash
Member
Well obviously they don't... how is that even a question here?
Edit: With Nintendo it seems. At the very least they protect him from copyright strikes.
……forgetit
Member
Then he's fine imo