-
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
Oh no he should talk about it. But trying to garner sympathy by posting a video to see if Nintendo was serious about their well known policy, then taking it down because he wasn't going to make money off of it, and then calling the company a dick and throwing a tantrum is a weird way to talk about it if he really does want some kind of change. If he's against it he should talk all he wants about it, doing it this way just makes him look like a fool though and I can't imagine the company taking it seriously at all.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Your definition of 'for the gamers' is whether they release games or not. My definition is how much they watch out for their fans. So yes, AJ watches out more for his fans(IE you can watch his Hardline video, he goes through the DLC and warns people of the game) than Nintendo. So you're arguing something different.
Edit-You are the one who came in and started accusing me of being wrong, because you misinterpreted what I said, because obviously I was talking about how AJ made games. or something. Than calling me a liar because apparently I inferred as much. You're arguing something different.
Read above. And I'm sure everyone is happy about how Nintendo is allocating their Amiibo reserves and letting scalpers have free reign in selling them~
Well, considering it's Nintendo's IP, and they put in a lot more work making the game than some person did filming a YouTube video, yes. It seems fair.
TheSlySoul
Member
It's cool my friend.
I want to like my Wii U more but the third party suuuucks. Rodeo is the first truly good looking game.
ShinMaruku
Member
I think some of the video commentators have an inflated sense of importance. Yes some games get great exposure but that's more to indies and cheaper games. I have seen none push more expensive products because their influence is less obvious than it seems. It's a complex thing. Also Nintendo has been making games for 30+ years the only company with near their experience is Sony and their legacies are really the leading edge of their exposure.
Pretty sure you can do this as well.
Joe taking down his video is silly. The video is made, the costs are sunk. Why not use the video to drive business to his channel even more? Unless a) he really has no interest in diversifying his business at all or b) he knew Nintendo would strike it down and planned the rant video as a way for increased publicity and to get some money in the short term.
B) Sure isn't "For the Gamer" in my opinion.
please don't misinterpret my wordsGonzo The Great
Banned
Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it. What horrible logic.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
I watched the video, read this entire thread, and I'm still not sure how I feel about this.
Why are people referring to that post where the splits are backwards: it's actually 70% content creators / 30% Nintendo or 60% content creators / 40% Nintendo depending on what contract you sign. Stop referencing to that post, it's wrong.
Bots are better than you
Banned
Yeah, God forbid that he has to work for his paycheck instead of playing games and ranting about them.
You know, I think I the guys who make the Epic Rap Battles of History deserve money for their videos. Because they actually put a lot of work in them, and are not only playing games while talking crap about them.
Getting 60% is (imo) still too much for him... But that's what he gets with playing by the rules. And no more legal cap from Nintendo either.
Making a product using tools is not the same thing as making a derivative work using someone else's IP. That's more akin to trying to make money from fanfiction or a cover of a song. Turns out Fair Use is actually a pretty nuanced issue and there's no one-size-fits-all answer to what derivative works you can and can't monetize.
For the record, I am not really defending Nintendo here. They're within their rights, but their stance is generally regressive and they need to make improvements.
……forgetit
Member
Because it's anti-consumer and bad press? Almost no other company does it, so why should Nintendo?
Well hell, this would back up my point even more.
How is this ANTI CONSUMER? I have Mario Party 10 reviews. I can search and find everything I need to know on the game. Nintendo is not actively trying to deceive me. That are actively striking against videos not in their content program though. Which does not affect me, as a consumer, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!
James Scott
Banned
I'm going to miss all those Nintendo videos Joe never made.
Seriously though, the only excuse I've heard is that it's free advertising, and if Nintendo thinks that it's worth losing some promotion by doing this, then it's their choice.
Sure, the program is a bit iffy, but you can give feedback while the program is still in Beta. I think they are entitled to some revenue if you're making money off of their IP.
Maybe he revenue cut isn't fair enough, maybe the orher policies aren't great, well let them know what to fix.
YouTubers that don't cover Nintendo games pledging to not cover Nintendo games seem like empty threats and kind of weird since it's like over a year old.
And I've seen Jim Sterling do the EA thing too, still think the owner of the IP is entitled to some revenue if they want it (and if they don't, more power to them, doesn't mean that others are in the wrong for wanting a cut)
It's also not the 100% it was originally, it's like 30%.
Seriously though, the only excuse I've heard is that it's free advertising, and if Nintendo thinks that it's worth losing some promotion by doing this, then it's their choice.
Sure, the program is a bit iffy, but you can give feedback while the program is still in Beta. I think they are entitled to some revenue if you're making money off of their IP.
Maybe he revenue cut isn't fair enough, maybe the orher policies aren't great, well let them know what to fix.
YouTubers that don't cover Nintendo games pledging to not cover Nintendo games seem like empty threats and kind of weird since it's like over a year old.
And I've seen Jim Sterling do the EA thing too, still think the owner of the IP is entitled to some revenue if they want it (and if they don't, more power to them, doesn't mean that others are in the wrong for wanting a cut)
It's also not the 100% it was originally, it's like 30%.
Not into the whole Let's Play scene at all, but sucks to hear one of the big streamers won't be covering Ninty games anymore.
I don't get how these guys can complain though when they're using someone else's intellectual property to make money without making it into a parody. No horse is high enough.
I don't get how these guys can complain though when they're using someone else's intellectual property to make money without making it into a parody. No horse is high enough.
They have that right, obviously. Nobody here is denying that.
But enforcing that right is only hurting Nintendo in the long run. Youtubers will simply choose to completely ignore Nintendo's library of games. Many already have.
It's like Microsoft's parity clause. Everyone understands the reasons why it was written in the first place and they have the right to block games off the Xbox platform, but at this point, enforcing it is only hurting themselves.
Cbajd5
Member
They and the original poster refuse to actually read the link posted either. The first sentence of it has it right...
Last week, Nintendo announced that YouTube video makers would be able to receive up to 70 percent of the ad revenue on videos featuring Nintendo games, up from a previous zero revenue share.
TheSlySoul
Member
It is polarizing.
I agree they should get a portion if they opt for it. However, that portion being a 2 digit % is bull.
If they want to use Content ID, have it automatically take a 5% instead of 100%. Then if you want all of it, type out details on why.
Edit: I also have to laugh at all the people who think editing is not a job, oh boy. Someone tell Barry/Kevin.
Correct.. A lot of people are very backwards on this and just sound so... entitled.
It's their IP. Their game. Their work, their properties. No one else is ENTITLED to use that property to monetize it for themselves. So, yes, it's abundantly fair that Nintendo can set the terms for monetizing their properties. If you don't like it, Nintendo's more than content for you to not make videos making money from their stuff.
I think it's kind of scary that there's a mindset that everyone is naturally entitled to exploit all of your hard earned work, your contnet, your intelllectual property, to make profit for themselves and if you aren't okay with it you deserve ridicule. These are scary times we live in.
You can make the argument that many game companies/indie devs benefit from youtubers doing videos. This is probably true, at least for some games. But the idea that they're not entitled to decide, for themselves, whether they want their properties monetized BY other people, is scary.
ClosingADoor
Member
I don't know what Amiibo's have to do with this discussion about Youtube.
Looking our for fans is a subjective thing. Maybe Nintendo thinks having tons of videos online of their games is worse for fans, since they rather have them experience the game itself instead of watching them.
It is their policy for now. They are within their rights to do it like this. Joe knows that. Framing Nintendo as some kind of bad company for this seems unfair to me.
I see this a lot on the internet. People think it is their right to download movies, tv, music, do whatever with that content and make money of it. But if they make a funny meme and somebody copies it, suddenly they cry about it. When it is your work being copied and profited from, it is suddenly a whole other issue. But most won't have to deal with that, so it is easy to complain.
Nintendo was fully compensated for their work they put in when the game was bought for however much they offered it.
Anyway, the only one losing out on this is Nintendo anyway.. in the youtube space they'll fall into irrelevancy (if they aren't already).. word of mouth is a strong driver of sales. AJ will just replace the videos that would be off Nintendo games with other games.. he'll continue to grow his channel and make money off of it because there are companies that have a more modern outlook on IP and free advertising. It's sad that the company that is maybe most loved for the childhood memories it gave people is being so stubborn in becoming irrelevant for the new generation of gamers that get their information from Lets players and youtube channels.
legacyzero
Banned
I think to me, it's more confusion, than malice. If I were a business owner, I would want all the exposure I could get, while maintaining a small marketing budget. And for you, ESPECIALLY you, I'd hope you'd agree with that. As much as I love your game and concept, I want the most people to know about it as possible. And of course, without you having to go broke marketing it.
So for me, I would rather forgo the little bit of cash I'd make from Youtubers that are happily spreading the word about my business, than lose the thousands/millions for internet marketing. I feel like that's business basics, and in my line of work, I support Small Businesses that really really NEED that.
It also creates goodwill with your customer/fan base.
There seems to be an issue in this regarding Nintendo's 'greed'.
But are monetizing these Nintendo videos the distinguishing factor in whether or not Angry Joe is living above or below his financial means? Considering that he hasn't been making Nintendo videos prior to this, and that he can afford to spend $900 of his own money on a Wii U, games and accessories, I'm doubtful of that.
It's all greed, on both sides.
But are monetizing these Nintendo videos the distinguishing factor in whether or not Angry Joe is living above or below his financial means? Considering that he hasn't been making Nintendo videos prior to this, and that he can afford to spend $900 of his own money on a Wii U, games and accessories, I'm doubtful of that.
It's all greed, on both sides.
But he's not completely uncompensated. Where is that even coming from? They take a cut, right?
Wait, didn't Joe accept the Wii U from his community to allow coverage? And now he isn't going to follow through due to not making money from said coverage?
I'm not a big fan of Joe, but I think it is damn shitty to accept a console not provide coverage by using it.
Nintendo have already set their stall out re:coverage which Joe should have followed.
I'm not a big fan of Joe, but I think it is damn shitty to accept a console not provide coverage by using it.
Nintendo have already set their stall out re:coverage which Joe should have followed.
It's an interesting question - where do you draw the line? MST3k, after all, had to license the content they used, and that is pretty much 'talking over a movie'. But then, the act of playing a game might well make a recording of that playthrough a completely independent derivative work.
The thing I'm finding most curious about this is, well, the fact that it's Nintendo doing it. The biggest danger of these videos could be revealing storyline surprises - i.e. the parts which really *are* Just A Movie - but then, that's not really something Nintendo particularly trades on. I will say that even despite the negative reviews, I was still curious and interested in the story that The Order would tell - but I could find explicit breakdowns of it with full video, entirely legitimately, which takes away one aspect of the game that could be sold to me.
Phrozenflame500
Member
A). You'd be surprised how much work goes into recording, editing, releasing and making money off a video.
B). Regardless of how much "work" Nintendo put into their game, LP's and videos of the same nature of transformative works that should be judged on their own and not into relation to Nintendo. Joe as a commentator is the main draw here, not the Nintendo footage.
C). Even if it wasn't "fair", "fairness" is a completely irrelevant concept in a capitalist system. It makes the most business sense for Nintendo to allow these sorts of videos because the advertising and PR benefits far out way the minuscule revenue they get from the tiny subset of content creators who adhere to their stupid draconian rule set.
Daffy Duck
Member
Care to explain why Nintendo are the only people to have this stance?
Dude. It's THEIR property. Nintendo's. No one else is entitled to exhibit Nintendo's content for profit. It's such a great thing Youtube and the legal system protects them.
Not being Nintendo, no, I can't explain it. I could only speculate, but what difference does it make? It's their stuff. It doesn't have to be qualified. The legality of it doesn't depend on them explaining why they don't want their content exhibited by others to profit others. They own it!
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Yeah, I figure if the WiiU was donated to him, I figure atleast SOME users would like to see him cover Wii-U games. He tried to cover MP10, and well the rest is history.
Okay? That still doesn't give a consumer the right to profit over an IP he/she doesn't own.
Belgian Dude
Member
Now he monetizes the (another) rant video, everybody wins!
This situation reminds me a bit of the comment PDP made about "thanks for the monies" in a Retsupurae video, then proceeded to make a good-natured "I'm Sorry" video for all the people that thought he was only in for the money when he got some backslash, and then MONETIZED the "I'm Sorry" video. Yeah.
Yeah, it's a bit stupid that they want that much control over their IP, but, like always, the 'free coverage' and entitlement is a bit too much, IMO.
This situation reminds me a bit of the comment PDP made about "thanks for the monies" in a Retsupurae video, then proceeded to make a good-natured "I'm Sorry" video for all the people that thought he was only in for the money when he got some backslash, and then MONETIZED the "I'm Sorry" video. Yeah.
Yeah, it's a bit stupid that they want that much control over their IP, but, like always, the 'free coverage' and entitlement is a bit too much, IMO.
Alright, so can I buy a copy of an book, make my own version where I copy the whole thing word for word but replace the main character's name with something else, then try to sell my "new original work" and expect the original book's publisher and author to be cool with it? I did already pay for the book.
Not saying that's what's happening with Let's Plays, but the "He already paid for it!" argument is not very good.
call_kotaku
Member
The EVO thread from 2 years ago was way worse
I can understand hating Angry Joe, but hating on Breast Cancer Research is way sillier
James Scott
Banned
Doesn't really work that way. Buy the latest album at the top of the charts, doesn't allow you to use it in a video.
How is going to hurt Nintendo in the long run? Nintendo is the cockroach of this industry. They will be around longer than any of the YTers we are discussing today.
Youtubers are business people. If Nintendo's next system is a smash hit, they, as business owners, would cut off their nose to spite their own face and NOT cover them? Leave all that money on the table? Bullshit.
Darryl M R
Member
I actually watched the video last night since I follow Angry Joe on YouTube. His video made me consider getting this game for my little sister. None of the other YouTube personas I view exposed me to this game. I do think this is reasonable to say that his videos (and other YouTube videos) expose people to certain Nintendo games that they might not have considered. I watched the video for his banter not because of the gameplay.
Nintendo can legally enforce this backward policy but as a business standpoint it makes little sense to go against streamers and people who make videos for YouTube since it is undeniable that they influence consumers. I worry about Nintendo especially with their new console in development. If YouTube and Twitch content makers that have a huge following decide not to make content for Nintendo's new console because of Nintendo's policy it could hurt them heavily.
Hell look now. An Angry Joe thread gets at least 10+ pages, a few bans, and is often quoted on other gaming "news" sites.
Nintendo can legally enforce this backward policy but as a business standpoint it makes little sense to go against streamers and people who make videos for YouTube since it is undeniable that they influence consumers. I worry about Nintendo especially with their new console in development. If YouTube and Twitch content makers that have a huge following decide not to make content for Nintendo's new console because of Nintendo's policy it could hurt them heavily.
Hell look now. An Angry Joe thread gets at least 10+ pages, a few bans, and is often quoted on other gaming "news" sites.
Anti consumer for not wanting someone to not make money off your shit? Alright.
As I said before ContentID is beyond broken on YouTube, the creator program was an interesting idea, but the numbers were not beneficial enough to justify them being the lone wolf in wanting to split revenue
ShinMaruku
Member
Because they can. There are probably others but they are not as big as nintendo. I am sure Sega are also assholes in this thing as well. You try to monitize Sega content. Them and Nintendo are avid fans of practicing realism.
air jordans for dogs
Member
Hope this shit backfires at nintendo, the free advertising they get could get from these types of videos could actually sell a few wii u consoles.
SerTapTap
Member
Good for Angry Joe. I've pretty much quietly stopped doing Nintendo content, it's a real pain. Even rom hacks and walkthroughs got tagged so I'm done, not worth the effort for something I dont' really own once it gets tagged. I do believe they'll eventually fall back on this, like every single other company in this industry and start being more reasonable, but they need to see more backlash before it'll happen.
GIANKRATOS
Member
This is just sad. Sad especially for the fans who supported aj in buying a wiiU hoping for nintendo content that they won't get because of nintendo itself.
It is rather short sighted not to include quality games because you can't make a few quid from videos using them.
Only someone driven by money would take such a stance. Are you saying Joe will only include games/platforms he makes money from? That isn't particularly healthy.
No, they won't get it because Joe will not follow Nintendo's guidelines. Plenty of other you tubers manage to cover Nintendo games.