• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

AngryJoe receives a Nintendo copyright claim. Hope they enjoyed the ad revenue; Done

NervousXtian said:
These threads always boil down usually to 2 stances:

Crowd A: It's fair use, the game companies should back off.

Crowd B: Youtubers are lazy, should get a real job, and stop complaining.


I'm crowd A.
Click to expand...

I'm Crowd C: The would be business owner that works with creators and not actively against them. I would use Nintendo's Creator system to create a good working relationship with the company for future investments, I would make some money doing it and I would diversify and create more exposure to my site where my other products (that make me more money) have a much greater chance of being seen. I would also understand that in other markets, creators are properly compensated for their work for use in other work (licensing is used in movies, TV, games, and music) and that gaming is REALLY FUCKING LUCKY that it is strange about all of this and ride this pony while I could.
 
CliffyB with that ether

6Y7RVh2.jpg
 
RocketRacoon said:
Nintendo Defence Force is active and on duty in this thread.
Click to expand...

How does something like this help the conversation? Kind of uncalled for. Seems like you're just trying to incite a reaction.

This sounds like something AngryJoe should contact Nintendo about. Seems like he was hit by a blanket policy or a bot, rather than a targeted take-down. Something tells me Nintendo will reverse the decision, especially after all this media attention.
 
Oh no! Nintendo is gonna be hurting without being covered by angry Joe! Might as well just shutter the doors, it's over. It was a good run, Nintendo. RIP in peace.
 
NervousXtian said:
These threads always boil down usually to 2 stances:

Crowd A: It's fair use, the game companies should back off.

Crowd B: Youtubers are lazy, should get a real job, and stop complaining.


I'm crowd A.
Click to expand...

totally fair and balanced summary there...

Let's plays almost certainly don't fall under fair use, and developers deserve compensation, and has the right to stop any infringing content, regardless of how lazy the youtubers may or may not be.
 
key said:
Or crowd C, which believes that a company is legally entitled to prevent others from profiting off of its IP.
Click to expand...

No, apparently, those people are Nintendo fanboys in this thread instead.

Nintendo getting part of the profit is a bad idea though apparently. It's either all the cash or none of it with Joe.

That's the right way to do it obviously.
 
NervousXtian said:
These threads always boil down usually to 2 stances:

Crowd A: It's fair use, the game companies should back off.

Crowd B: Youtubers are lazy, should get a real job, and stop complaining.


I'm crowd A.
Click to expand...

I'm in Crowd C actually

the "hey maybe there's a way that this can mutually beneficial to the original content creator and the youtubers. you know, like what has been made standard in pretty much every other medium"

basically everyone should be compensated for the work they do
 
LMAO at all the generalizations.
The original video was clipped moments from the Twitch stream. None lasted more than a minute or 2. It was not a full playthrough.
Even if he did review it, it would have been content ID'd. He is more pissed that it did get content ID'd than anything else.
 
Exile20 said:
The 3ds is doing well. They just came off of the Wii train, analyst believe mobile games from Nintendo is going to be huge financially and just look at the amiibo situation.

Your post is really laughable.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about people buying the 3ds I'm talking about being relevant to kids who are 5 and under being on there radar in 10+ years. Hell my 10 year old has no interest in Nintendos games, and my 7 year old probably doesn't even know who Nintendo are.
 
dark10x said:
I'm curious to understand what Nintendo gains from this. Of course it's within their rights but I'm really uncertain why they feel this is necessary. The tiniest amount of ill will created by this type of thing seems to be at odds with their need to expand their audience. People using their properties in this way doesn't seem especially damaging. The whole thing is a bit odd.

What would they be protecting their IP from, is what I'm wondering. This isn't piracy or anything even close to it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if it was just their legal department doing their part to defend their copyright without consulting with marketing or the developers, like the situation with the EVO. As far as I understand it, it's Legal's job to defend their rights, sometimes without consideration for broader consequences
 
Mindlog said:
The parallels to this situation and Nintendo's history with third party publishers run deep.

You really Believe™ outlets should pay Nintendo to cover Nintendo games?
Click to expand...

If they're making a profit off of it, absolutely.

Besides, they can cover Nintendo games without using footage they shot themselves and just use footage Nintendo has released in press releases. I mean JeremyJahns does this with his review videos of movies and games. He barely ever uses actual footage of the games or movies he reviews, just officially releeased screenshots. He gets close to 200,000 views per video and has over a million subscribers.

These guys have no excuse.
 
ForsakenLotus said:
Okay, here is a parallel: In Indiana, legislation passed that allowed religious beliefs to dictate whether a business can choose to serve, or not serve somebody based on those beliefs. Of course not long after a pizza place said they wouldn't serve homosexuals. Now, while the law wasn't intended to be used in quite that way, it is legal; but that doesn't make it right. People heard about it and became appropriately outraged and the pizza place is closed down indefinitely.

Point is, it's not that Nintendo doesn't have the right to make these claims, it's that it's idiotic and backwards thinking of them to do it. And while not every person in here who states Nintendo has the right to do this is silently agreeing with the policy and it's enforcement, I can't help but get the feeling that a lot of posters saying that do agree with the policy and the enforcement. I just don't see how people think this is the right thing to do - yet there are people who can't understand my point of view.
Click to expand...

Might as wll compare Nintendo to Nazi Germany while you are at it. Great argument though.
 
So instead of putting put content that your fans would enjoy your mad that you're not getting paid from it?

Get outta here - next Nintendo doesn't need your "free revenue" lol.
 
ForsakenLotus said:
Okay, here is a parallel: In Indiana, legislation passed that allowed religious beliefs to dictate whether a business can choose to serve, or not serve somebody based on those beliefs. Of course not long after a pizza place said they wouldn't serve homosexuals. Now, while the law wasn't intended to be used in quite that way, it is legal; but that doesn't make it right. People heard about it and became appropriately outraged and the pizza place is closed down indefinitely.

Point is, it's not that Nintendo doesn't have the right to make these claims, it's that it's idiotic and backwards thinking of them to do it. And while not every person in here who states Nintendo has the right to do this is silently agreeing with the policy and it's enforcement, I can't help but get the feeling that a lot of posters saying that do agree with the policy and the enforcement. I just don't see how people think this is the right thing to do - yet there are people who can't understand my point of view.
Click to expand...

Did you really just compare a company protecting its rights and using a tax on their products, to a law allowing companies to use religious beliefs to ban gays...?

Do you see the difference?
 
Kama_1082 said:
Oh no! Nintendo is gonna be hurting without being covered by angry Joe! Might as well just shutter the doors, it's over. It was a good run, Nintendo. RIP in peace.
Click to expand...

Can we please stop this? It's a well known fact that the WIi U isn't selling well and advertising issues is a large part of this.
 
BreezyLimbo said:
CliffyB with that ether

6Y7RVh2.jpg
Click to expand...

Well he can't be talking about Nintendo, they don't send out take down notices on Youtube.

Seriously, how many people who are talking about this on either side know the difference between a Content ID match and a Copyright Take down/Strike.
 
I just can't imagine how much bad it would do to Nintendo to just let the video be. I mean, it is their content and I agree they should be able to choose how it is represented, but flagging videos for using their content just seems... not worth it.


Though, this is not a Nintendo-only thing, other companies are trying to do stop Youtube/Twitch monetizing too, they're just subtler. Take PS4/Steam's native game streaming. It's an awesome feature and one I hope becomes standard in newer consoles, but it also kinda shuts down potential new streamers or youtubers, because it's so much easier to just press a button than to buy all the equipment to do it.
 
RocketRacoon said:
Nintendo Defence Force is active and on duty in this thread.
Click to expand...

Please. I barely play my Wii U and I like Angry Joe's reviews. When I say it's good that IP holders can protect their IPs, it's because I'm capable of forming independent thought. Some of the responses here blasting Nintendo just sound crazy to me. It's Nintendo's stuff, not yours, not AJ's, Nintendo can decide who is allowed to exhibit their fucking stuff for profit.
 
Cbajd5 said:
Well he can't be talking about Nintendo, they don't send out take down notices on Youtube.

Seriously, how many people who are talking about this on either side know the difference between a Content ID match and a Copyright Take down/Strike.
Click to expand...

Considering there are people that still think the video got taken down by Nintendo I would assume a lot.
 
its not even a take down notice. its just a copyright claim, protecting their IP. The fact that Joe gets majority of the revenue, nintendo takes a small cut, and he whines about it is baffling. He is feeling as if all of nintendo relies on him for this (they clearly dont). Also the fact that he wont make anymore videos is a slap to the fanbase who donated the funds for it in the first place.

It is just screaming entitlement here from joe. He still gets majority revenue.
 
Cbajd5 said:
Well he can't be talking about Nintendo, they don't send out take down notices on Youtube.

Seriously, how many people who are talking about this on either side know the difference between a Content ID match and a Copyright Take down/Strike.
Click to expand...
They're probably confused because Angry Joe took down the video and said it was Nintendo's fault.
 
key said:
Or crowd C, which believes that a company is legally entitled to prevent others from profiting off of its IP.
Click to expand...

That's not a separate crowd. Everyone, everyone here believes that Nintendo has all the legal right in the world to do so.

But when you're in the gaming business where exposure & hype equals profits gained and you're biting the hand that actually feeds you, then it's still a backward-ass thing to enforce.
 
Mariolee said:
Except I'm positive they've worked out a professional contract with Nintendo that helps them split the revenue evenly. If they haven't been, then we would've been seeing Nintendo putting down copyright claims ages ago. Angry Joe is just being ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt those companies are paying Nintendo a dime. The difference is Nintendo is stuck in last century and hasn't evolved in a hundred different ways, and recognizing how to get your content viewed by young people is one of them. They view those sites as the only acceptable ways to get their content out to the audience.
 
Nintendo has been working with YouTubers lately, so it's not like they don't 'get' the Internet either. They are also not taking down videos or taking all the revenue no mater what. You can get 60-70%
BreezyLimbo said:
CliffyB with that ether

6Y7RVh2.jpg
Click to expand...
Nintendo isn't taking down lets play videos, so I'm not sure if Cliffy is referring to this
 
Cbajd5 said:
Well he can't be talking about Nintendo, they don't send out take down notices on Youtube.

Seriously, how many people who are talking about this on either side know the difference between a Content ID match and a Copyright Take down/Strike.
Click to expand...

He probably confused what happened, but he posted that recently(Past 10 minutes), so he's probably referring to Nintendo. Besides, let's not pretend that Nintendo taking control of a video is any better than taking it down.
 
Phrozenflame500 said:
A). If we're going to compare arbitrary definitions of work I'd argue that one person running a youtube channel might be more work then thousands of people working on a game. But business-wise the amount of "work" put in is irrelevant.

B). He doesn't. He worked completely fine without them and will continue to work completely fine without them. The frustration is that there's an arbitrary wall put in place in front of certain content that's both anti-consumer and anti-business.

Compare it to dismissing the original XB1 design under "just buy a different console". Sure it works and it's what everyone did, but it hurts everyone, sets a bad precedent and could be fixed by even the slightest amount of common sense.

C). It's generally anecdotal, but the fact of the matter easily all the big time YouTuber's can easily push sales of small indie games to AAA-levels of popularity (Five Nights at Freddies, anybody?) If you think that these YouTuber's would cover Nintendo videos with such an absurd content creator system when they could just make another video you're fooling yourself. And if you think Nintendo's not hurting right now because of poor advertising among the casual market, you're also fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

A) And I'd argue that it's not. So obviously we won't make any headway there. But it is relevant in the sense that Nintendo put in the work to create the IP, so they have the legal right to prevent others from profiting from it.

B) "Arbitrary" is an interesting way to describe it. It seems like Nintendo's stance is based on the law, meaning it's anything but arbitrary.

C) A small indie title is much different than a Nintendo title. The fact of the matter is that the folks at Nintendo believe they don't need Joe's "free advertising," and they're likely more qualified to make that call than anyone here on neogaf.
 
I can't say I understand the appeal of Angry Joe, I click off his videos within seconds of loading them and he's just coming off as immature here too. Nintendo aren't obligated to share ad revenue with him. That being said i'm sure there are many people who do enjoy his videos and it's a shame they won't get to learn about Nintendo products with him anymore. Neither Nintendo nor Mr Joe are in the wrong but it would be nice to see Nintendo be more lenient with their partnership program.
 
-Mutsukki- said:
I just can't imagine how much bad it would do to Nintendo to just let the video be. I mean, it is their content and I agree they should be able to choose how it is represented, but flagging videos for using their content just seems... not worth it.


Though, this is not a Nintendo-only thing, other companies are trying to do stop Youtube/Twitch monetizing too, they're just subtler. Take PS4/Steam's native game streaming. It's an awesome feature and one I hope becomes standard in newer consoles, but it also kinda shuts down potential new streamers or youtubers, because it's so much easier to just press a button than to buy all the equipment to do it.
Click to expand...
The video was not flagged or taken down. The content was detected by Youtubes system as being of a Nintendo game, and so the ad revenue from the video then goes to Nintendo instead of the uploader. The video itself was not taken offline until Joe did so himselve because he doesn't want Nintendo making money from it.

So basically Nintendo is saying: this is my content, I should earn the money. Joe is saying: this is my content, I should earn the money.

In the end, legally it is Nintendo's content and they are within their right. Not everybody agrees with that, but that is how it is.

Megatron said:
I sincerely doubt those companies are paying Nintendo a dime. The difference is Nintendo is stuck in last century and hasn't evolved in a hundred different ways, and recognizing how to get your content viewed by young people is one of them. They view those sites as the only acceptable ways to get their content out to the audience.
Click to expand...
Online media are not paying Nintendo, nor should they. They cover Nintendo games and in some cases work out agreements about that content (you give me the game before release, I put a review online. You let me play it early, I write a preview, etc) They have a working relationship with Nintendo like tons of media and other companies have. The money is being made with the ads (or subscriptions, but online not really that).
 
Pegasus Actual said:
I always get a kick out of seeing people defend Nintendo's ridiculous YouTube policy. If Google had any decency they'd shut that garbage down and put their lawyer army on the case when they get sued.
Click to expand...
You realize that it is google and youtube policy that is allowing this to happen right?

If google should be suing anybody, it should be themselves for creating such a crappy system.
 
NervousXtian said:
These threads always boil down usually to 2 stances:

Crowd A: It's fair use, the game companies should back off.

Crowd B: Youtubers are lazy, should get a real job, and stop complaining.


I'm crowd A.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, not at all. I don't think exhibiting content from beginning to end and profiting from it with the creator of the content having no say in it is fair at all, but I also don't think Youtubers are lazy or that anyone should get a real job. I'm actually an adult human thinking independently.
 
Jobbs said:
Please. I barely play my Wii U and I like Angry Joe's reviews. When I say it's good that IP holders can protect their IPs, it's because I'm capable of forming independent thought. Some of the responses here blasting Nintendo just sound crazy to me. It's Nintendo's stuff, not yours, not AJ's, Nintendo can decide who is allowed to exhibit their fucking stuff for profit.
Click to expand...
Again, what are they protecting their IP from? That's what doesn't add up. Being used in a YouTube video doesn't actually seem like a threat to their business or IP. In fact, even if the impact is tiny, it actually seems beneficial.

So I do agree they're entitled to protect their IP but...I'm not convinced their IP is actually in danger here.

I could see an argument made if we were talking about a game based entirely on narrative with minimal gameplay...but that is the antithesis of Nintendo games.
 
legacyzero said:
Was just about to post this, and I 100% agree.

Sure, Nintendo. You have full legal right to your IP. And that's actually a good thing. You're just going about it the WAAAAAAAAAAY wrong way.
Click to expand...

So, you agree100% with the wrong thing?

Nintendo did not send a takedown notice. So why is Cliffy talking about take downs? If he referring to this? Or is he being daft like most of this thread as well?
 
ForsakenLotus said:
Okay, here is a parallel: In Indiana, legislation passed that allowed religious beliefs to dictate whether a business can choose to serve, or not serve somebody based on those beliefs. Of course not long after a pizza place said they wouldn't serve homosexuals. Now, while the law wasn't intended to be used in quite that way, it is legal; but that doesn't make it right. People heard about it and became appropriately outraged and the pizza place is closed down indefinitely.

Point is, it's not that Nintendo doesn't have the right to make these claims, it's that it's idiotic and backwards thinking of them to do it. And while not every person in here who states Nintendo has the right to do this is silently agreeing with the policy and it's enforcement, I can't help but get the feeling that a lot of posters saying that do agree with the policy and the enforcement. I just don't see how people think this is the right thing to do - yet there are people who can't understand my point of view.
Click to expand...

Right or not the law allows them to do so. Don't like it? Don't make Nintendo videos or get Nintendo to change their stance. The reality of the situation however is that currently Nintendo can enforce their rules. Thats where we're at right now. So people can say "well its dumb" all they want but it is what it is. Lifes unfair sometimes. However if people speak up enough whoi knows maybe they will change their mind. However breaking rules and then complaining that you got caught just makes you come off as childish.
 
ClosingADoor said:
The video was not flagged or taken down. The content was detected by Youtubes system as being of a Nintendo game, and so the ad revenue from the video then goes to Nintendo instead of the uploader. The video itself was not taken offline until Joe did so himselve because he doesn't want Nintendo making money from it.

So basically Nintendo is saying: this is my content, I should earn the money. Joe is saying: this is my content, I should earn the money.

In the end, legally it is Nintendo's content and they are within their right. Not everybody agrees with that, but that is how it is.
Click to expand...
Yep, that is what has happened.
My guess is they used the sound clip of a Bowser mini-game selection in the content ID system and any video with ads gets automatically scanned.
At least that is what I gathered since I seen trailers get claimed in the case of Pokemon.
 
NYR said:
I have no sympathy for him. YouTube isn't a real job, it's winning the lottery.
Click to expand...

yeah go tell that to the people making 6 figures for years. Michelle Phan? O who is that idiot?

Just a makeup youtuber that makes over 6 figures

What a dummy, why can't youtubers get real 9-5 jobs instead of making 6 figures
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Were Nintendo fans actually sincere when they said Nintendo only needed Nintendo games?
2 3
114
912
LordOcidax replied
  • Poll
Would Nintendo games have done better on PC than Sony games did?
2
68
833
FoxMcChief replied
Nintendo Direct was the ‘most watched’ Summer Game Fest presentation, analytics firm claims
Business Event Analysis 
23
278
Woopah replied
In This Cost-Cutting Crisis, The Global Games Market Has Hit $200 Billion Yearly Revenue
2 3
104
532
LiquidMetal14 replied
  • Locked
NVIDIA Removes Gaming Revenue Category From Financial Reports
News Business 
2
248
Orpheus replied
Top Bottom