SilentRacoon
Member
One is replicating the product itself while the other is just using it as a medium.
So you rebutted by equating two different practices that aren't remotely similar to each other at all, alright good job.
-
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
One is replicating the product itself while the other is just using it as a medium.
So you rebutted by equating two different practices that aren't remotely similar to each other at all, alright good job.
cheezcake
Member
Ah sorry misunderstood, I'm just really flabbergasted at the reactions of so many people in this thread.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
All the kids i know that are ages 8-14 both male and female game a ton and they learn about games from watching people play and review games on Youtube. You know how those horrible Youtube guys (AngryJoe is not one of them btw) that gets like 5 million views for doing the dumbest shit? These kids are the ones watching and Youtube is this generations schoolyard playground.
My prediction is that in less than 5 years all the companies being hardasses about Youtube players will warm up to it out of necessity.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Perhaps slightly off topic, but it bothers me how people always try to argue these things from a 'but it's good for the publisher too' angle
WHY?
Are you arguing with publishers and shareholders here or fellow consumers/gamers?
It's a really weird form of pandering
GAF has this extremely weird tendency to confuse their own interests with those of corporations.
WHY?
Are you arguing with publishers and shareholders here or fellow consumers/gamers?
It's a really weird form of pandering
GAF has this extremely weird tendency to confuse their own interests with those of corporations.
If he theoretically filed a dispute, it's up to the content holder, not Google, to decide whether or not their content is being used under fair use provisions. And if he appealed the content holder's decision, again, it would be the content holder's judgement whether that appeal was valid. If after the appeal the content holder decides that the uploader does not have a valid claim, the owner must take down the video and must give the original uploader a DMCA strike.
Once a content producer is accepted into the program and content is uploaded to the Content ID system, the publisher of that content is given all rights to it, again, indiscriminately.
Cbajd5
Member
This isn't true. You can choose to monetize based on videos only, and you'll get a lower split because of that, but you don't have to make an exclusive channel for Nintendo videos to be monetized as part of their program. Only if you want the maximum split. (70% if the entire channel is dedicated, 60% if you do it by video.)
It's all laid out on their website for the program.
Why? Coverage helps game sales. Unless you can demonstrate that somehow magically for Nintendo coverage is a bad thing.
evilromero
Member
What's the issue? Musicians and music labels get ad revenue from every song of theirs someone uploads. Why are games any different? And why does someone expect to get paid to just play video games?
This is a pretty backwards blanket statement. I watch content created at Giantbomb and Cinemassacre primarily for personnel of those sites. 10 times out of 10 I would watch a video of a guy getting his head shaved or guys taking out the office trash instead Mario Party 10 footage. I never see footage, outside a few trailers linked in topics created on GAF, for any Nintendo game unless its being highlighted by these guys.
When you and Nintendo realize it's possible that fans are watching these videos for something other than Nintendo products, then maybe you can understand why others find the one size fits all policy to be a pretty bad one. Maybe then you and Nintendo will understand that there should be individual agreements with the bigger content creators who, in the eyes of many, are absolutely more relevant than some Nintendo products. They shouldn't get a significant portion of the revenue just for being lucky enough to be featured.
This post is irritating as hell to me. So because someone does work you find "easy," that means they do not deserve to get paid? So what if I think your "shitty" factory jobs is too easy? I mean if you compare your 45 hour week with living 24/7 in a 110 degree desert full of people trying to off you, I think I could make the argument that my job is much "harder" than yours, should you not get paid?
I think the only reason a lot of people are making anti-youtube comments is straight up jealousy.
7DollarHagane
Banned
The ones that get to earn ad revenue off their copyrighted content do. That makes total sense.
Want to make a video about how nintendo is awful? no one is stopping you. But Nintendo isn't going to let you use their copyrights to profit.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Didn't a Nintendo fan buy him the system so he can cover Wii U games?
Anyways, yes Nintendo is so behind the times. This video didn't hurt their product in any way, shape, or form. I'd watched the video previously, and it looks like they were having a fun time. It could've easily pushed someone off the fence, but whatever. He's doing the right thing by not covering their games.
It's funny how a lot of people defend Nintendo when it comes to a simple Youtube video, yet take a completely opposite stance when someone recreates a free to download Super Mario 64 level using Nintendo's own assets!
I guess using Nintendo's property is only fine when it serves your own self interests.
Anyways, yes Nintendo is so behind the times. This video didn't hurt their product in any way, shape, or form. I'd watched the video previously, and it looks like they were having a fun time. It could've easily pushed someone off the fence, but whatever. He's doing the right thing by not covering their games.
It's funny how a lot of people defend Nintendo when it comes to a simple Youtube video, yet take a completely opposite stance when someone recreates a free to download Super Mario 64 level using Nintendo's own assets!
I guess using Nintendo's property is only fine when it serves your own self interests.
Stuff like this is good for both though. Companies as well as gamers.
Companies benefit via their niche games having a better chance at becoming more popular and gamers get to see honest opinions from people.
Wiktor
Member
And that is exactly the reason why Nintendo is riding so fast straight into irrevelancy these days. They've time and time again shown complete lack of understanding of the changes that are happening in gaming market. This is just the newest example of that.
Did I miss the part where Angry Joe's video was removed from YouTube by Nintendo? It wasn't.
cheezcake
Member
Thank god. I was just trying to find a way to put this in words but your post expresses it perfectly. It's just so damn bizzare.
I never understood where this rather visceral dislike of YTers come from. You'd think people would be happy to see others making a living out of the hobby they love. But I guess not. Even on GAF, whenever an AJ thread pops up, you always have posters coming in to shitpost and declare how awful AJ is and derail the discussion.
Beelzebufo
Banned
I don't have an example of what you're saying so this might be inaccurate, but perhaps they're trying to explain why the company made this decision or whatever, rather than why you should be happy about it.
Like there are definitely extenuating situations where the right decision for the company isn't nevessarily the best one for the consumers.
I guess to the question of "WHY?", the answer would be "for clarity's sake"?
And I mean... for the record we do have developers/publishers and I can only assume shareholders on GAF
baphomet
Member
Do you seriously think that's even close to the same thing?
Moral Panic
Member
Hard work != Free reign to infringe copyright. My analogy states that eloquently.
BodiesWithoutOrgans
Member
Nintendo didn't ask you to advertise for them. If your making money from something that's not yours nintendo has a right to a cut
The amount of hate for YouTubers are insane. Seriously? Calling them parasites? That's what the nazis called gays, jews, socialists etc. during the second world war. Are you really using thsoe kinds of words?
Feels like some people think that YouTubers also have the easiest life ever. Well, I would dream about recording fottage and let the videos cut, edit itself. 1 video takes me hours to get done, like 5 hours or so from the process I start recording to they are being uploaded to YT.
I have a YouTube channel with 29 subs. I dont' give a shit. I just play video games I like, upload them to YouTube and hope the people who come over them likes them.
Feels like some people think that YouTubers also have the easiest life ever. Well, I would dream about recording fottage and let the videos cut, edit itself. 1 video takes me hours to get done, like 5 hours or so from the process I start recording to they are being uploaded to YT.
I have a YouTube channel with 29 subs. I dont' give a shit. I just play video games I like, upload them to YouTube and hope the people who come over them likes them.
No they don't. There are hundreds of thousands of full albums uploaded on YouTube that artists don't make dick from.
Content ID is automated. It will strike any video that has their stuff in it.
legacyzero
Banned
Not sarcastic at all. Pewdiepie (love him or hate him) is the perfect example of why Nintendo needs to pull their head from their asses.
PreFire
Member
In other words, if you like the game and says you like it and not say anything bad about, Nintendo doesn't take all your ad revenue?
But if you criticize the game and mention things you don't like, but get ad revenue from it, Nintendo thinks it's ok to take it all? Do they do this with reviewers on YouTube that don't like their games?
If I physically buy your product, it's mine. As long as I'm not making copies and distributing it, the company shouldn't stick their nose in.
There are people who have videos go rival for destroying their products made by Sony, Apple, whatever the fuck. Pretty sure they make money from that
Some dude demolished his ps4 day one. Did Sony take all the ad revenue (if he made) from that guys viral video because it was kind of a negative message? Probably not
I just think it's fucked up. I open up Live from Playstation and there is a shit ton of people streaming themselves playing their video games. Some may think, shit I do this at home and don't make money but others may admire their hustle. Game streaming is a thing, and I think most of the people who are bashing Joe/siding with Nintendo just don't like streamers or Joe.
His video wasn't forced down, but they took the ad revenue. How can't some of you not see that this is wrong?
call_kotaku
Member
If Nintendo was the only company making videogames then this decision wouldn't automatically be stupid and backwards.
It's not an issue of whether LPers deserve to earn money (it's an asinine argument full of people with terrible preconceived notions about what actual "work" is), it's about Nintendo basically turning down free advertising because they have no idea what the internet is, while all their competitors get to exploit it. Companies like EA promote the shit out of their stuff on youtube, not because of their dedication to the careers of internet video producers, but because it can reach a larger audience for a fraction of the effort and the parties involved aren't as expensive nor do they hold themselves to high ethical standards. Netherrealms and Microsoft paid a ton of money to get their games a presence at Evolution, while Nintendo hears about a massive grassroots campaign to get their game there (a game which now might be more popular than competitive Street Fighter) and wants to shut the whole event down.
Yes, it's arrogant for AngryJoe to presume that his coverage is important, but it's probably more arrogant for Nintendo to believe that their games don't need all the coverage or community good will they can get.
Seraphis Cain
bad gameplay lol
Boom, nailed it.
"It's not a real job unless you hate doing it" seems to be the mindset of a lot of people in here.
baphomet
Member
Yea, I'm not earning shit from my multiple albums on there.
Beelzebufo
Banned
Thanks! So does every viewer who reviews something Nintendo get their approval before hand? Like even less flattering stuff like the Matthewmatosis vids? And every single Gamexplain video?
evilromero
Member
Making a living making video games is one thing. Just playing them? That's silly unless you're a critic at which point we have examples of that in film and music journalism.
……forgetit
Member
Jealousy mainly. The funning thing is guys like Jim Sterling do it too and no one hates him, granted he makes his money from his website and fan donations, but it's still the same concept. Hell people were angry at the idea of Joe using fan donations to buy a new PC.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Oh come on. Stop being silly. Coverage benefits are not exclusive to Indie games. Its not like Nintendo advertises all its games well, and the WiiU is already heading towards being their worst selling home console.
If you want an example of a retail release:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...inted-following-its-recent-youtube-popularity
There is just as much equal hatred for Nintendo, given the large amount of "NDF, corporate apologist, NINTENDO DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED" style posts in here as well.
The problem isn't hatred for youtubers in general.
It's the ones who have essentially become their own personal brand, and start making videos not based on personal passion or interests, but potential financial reward.
AngryJoe won't keep his own video up because he won't get paid for it. It's already finished, completed and everything. But he won't. Because he won't get paid. Those are the problem Youtubers.
TheSlySoul
Member
That takes me back.
Nintendo did a really bad job marketing the Wii U at launch. It is sad some random people convinced me more than Nintendo.
Moral Panic
Member
You are distributing it. The video game is an audio visual work. You are taking the audio you don't own and the visuals you don't own and distributing it. Some companies are fine with it. Some encourage it. But some want you to sign certain agreements before they allow you to do it.
Yup. I have 29 subs on my channel, but I love Pewds, Jack, Markiplier, RradBrad and many others because they give me entertainment and especially Pewds have my sense of humour.
cheezcake
Member
So how about when a website gives a movie a bad review with some clips or screens of it thrown in the background? Should Universal be allowed to stop Ebert from profiting? How about an album? Just let EMI pull the revenue source.
Don't you see the dangerous precedent it sets.
baphomet
Member
But you own the video of you playing it.
and they frequently get taken down because of that
Well it's his job and I don't think people who has YouTube as their job will keep working on videos which doesn't give them money.
That is a great example, thanks.
legacyzero
Banned
……forgetit
Member
Well obviously big developers see value in it too considering they were giving youtubers copies of Alien Isolation and Shadow of Mordor like they were going to expire last year.
Cbajd5
Member
If you have an example of them taking all of the revenue from a video that's part of the program just because of the creator's opinion on the game featured, then you may have an argument.
What? No, that's.... what? How did you get that?