Nintendo Copyright Claims Discussion Chat

[markkaz]

SHARED PLAY
For starters, the PS4 has built-in video compression hardware, which constantly records your gaming as you play. Using the new Share button on the PS4 controller, you can instantly grab a section of gameplay using simple edit controls and post it to say your PSN profile or Facebook. Live streaming is also possible through the popular Ustream sevice – so you'll be able to stream constant footage to you fans – presuming you're some kind of pro gamer.
It goes one step further though, allowing others to join in your gaming session, from which they can talk you through difficult parts or even (with your permission) take over the controls to help you out directly when you get stuck. We're not sure how popular this will be, but games developers might be able to spin it into something far more intriguing – possibly even central to a clever indie game – where you have to help out other players by taking temporary control of their characters.

Thanks for taking the time to post this into the discussion. However, it doesn't say anything about Sony allowing people to monetize their PS4 content. They may allow sharing but not the ability to monetize the content.[DOUBLEPOST=1368733740,1368733064][/DOUBLEPOST]

Look at someone like Chuggaaconroy, he worked YEARS and YEARS to get his popularity he has today of doing Nintendo games. Nintendo was even AWARE...

One problem that I have with copyrighted material is that if there is a claim, the copyright owner/claimant get 100% of the money. I wish they had a method that a shared revenue plan could be agreed upon. Or possibly licensing deals.

Look, I do toy reviews, you can see logo's and I use patented parts. The difference is that I bought the items and they are now mine. With digital content, there are different laws and the original owner still owns the broadcasting rights of the audio and visual content.[DOUBLEPOST=1368734178][/DOUBLEPOST]

IF YOU ARE A YOUTUBER BECAUSE OF THE MONEY PART THEN PLEASE DO US ALL A FAVOR AND LEAVE THE PLATFORM RIGHT NOW​

​

​

​

There's nothing wrong with doing something for the money. In my case, it is an extension of my hobby. Would I be spending 5-6 hours a day on YouTube stuff if I wasn't making money? No way.​

[DOUBLEPOST=1368734439][/DOUBLEPOST]
On another note, Content creators could take Nintendo to court to argue the "fair use" aspect.

 

[MarkRodriguez2012]

Thanks for taking the time to post this into the discussion. However, it doesn't say anything about Sony allowing people to monetize their PS4 content. They may allow sharing but not the ability to monetize the content.[DOUBLEPOST=1368733740,1368733064][/DOUBLEPOST]

One problem that I have with copyrighted material is that if there is a claim, the copyright owner/claimant get 100% of the money. I wish they had a method that a shared revenue plan could be agreed upon. Or possibly licensing deals.

Look, I do toy reviews, you can see logo's and I use patented parts. The difference is that I bought the items and they are now mine. With digital content, there are different laws and the original owner still owns the broadcasting rights of the audio and visual content.[DOUBLEPOST=1368734178][/DOUBLEPOST]

​

​

There's nothing wrong with doing something for the money. In my case, it is an extension of my hobby. Would I be spending 5-6 hours a day on YouTube stuff if I wasn't making money? No way.​

[DOUBLEPOST=1368734439][/DOUBLEPOST]
On another note, Content creators could take Nintendo to court to argue the "fair use" aspect.

True but are you doing it for fun and an extra hobby or are you forcing yourself to do it just for the money? If you're not really having fun and ONLY on YouTube for 5-6 hours a day for the money find a better hobby that earns you real money.

 

[Dolphin Squared]

To make sure I understand it the right way:

Just because Nintendo removed Zack Scott and a few other YouTubers the Option to monetize their Videos if it comes to Content that is owned by Nintendo they now stopped doing those Nintendo LP?

So if they hadn`t had the Option to monetize those from the Beginning they hadn`t done those straight from the beginning? Why does it sound so lame doesn`t matter how much I turn it around to don`t make them look like total douchebags?

Sidenote:

Yes I did in the past too LP of Games where I had got in contact with the Developers ahead and asked them if I can monetized those but they told me I couldn't do it since the Rights to every Content of it belongs to someone else and therefor I can`t monetize it and I`m free to don`t do those LP because of that reason.

I thought about it for a few Hours but did it anyway and every Part of those LP did hit after a few Months a few Million Views but I didn`t earned a single $ of it since as the Developer had told me the content was claimed by the legal Owner.

Still some might call me an Idiot for doing it or like some would say wasting my time but let`s face it: I did enjoy playing those Games and not the fact that those would earn me some Money so could we please stop this hole thing because...

IF YOU ARE A YOUTUBER BECAUSE OF THE MONEY PART THEN PLEASE DO US ALL A FAVOR AND LEAVE THE PLATFORM RIGHT NOW​

[DOUBLEPOST=1368730801,1368730481][/DOUBLEPOST]

Chuggaaconroy will be fine I guess...

Yes, while Nintendo is encouraging people to promote their games, monopolizing the Let's Play market of mainly Nintendo-developed games may not be a wise move, but like everyone said, it's legal. Nintendo, like every YouTube partner creating original content, owns the right to what they made. While this is bad for those making money off playing Nintendo first-party games, they have the right, no matter how many fans are angry about this.

Now by no means am I here to encourage every Let's Player to go on a strike and remove all Nintendo-related content on their channels to boycott their actions. Let's not forget that the reason why game companies are doing this is due to the fact that the gaming community on YouTube has grown so much beyond the point of creating awareness of the action, that it becomes a big pie that everyone wants a slice off. And occasionally, people do not buy their games, instead preferring to watch their favorite YouTubers play through the games they love. Looking at this trend, it's no wonder Nintendo step out as the first, and possibly not the only company, that takes action on people actually monopolizing the YouTube gaming market. Simply put, it's the reality of the business market after all.

A good friend of mine, who's also an Let's Player and a gaming interviewer will come up with a discussion panel with the affected YouTubers on this matter, so stay tuned.

 

[markkaz]

True but are you doing it for fun and an extra hobby or are you forcing yourself to do it just for the money? If you're not really having fun and ONLY on YouTube for 5-6 hours a day for the money find a better hobby that earns you real money.

Oh, trust me. I'm earning real money (6 million views a month). But to your point, yes, it is fun and natural for me to do what I do since I love the hobby. It is just another facet of the hobby, in my opinion. Some people collect cars and only keep them in the package. Some like them loose. Some like to customize them (re-paint, put on rubber tires). Some people like to play with them. Some people like to do downhill racing with them. So to me, making videos is just another way to enjoy the hobby. And to your point, no, I'm not just on YouTube for the money. Being part of other communities/channels is also satisfying.[DOUBLEPOST=1368750714,1368750555][/DOUBLEPOST]

...the gaming community on YouTube has grown so much beyond the point of creating awareness of the action, that it becomes a big pie that everyone wants a slice off. And occasionally, people do not buy their games, instead preferring to watch their favorite YouTubers play through the games they love. Looking at this trend, it's no wonder Nintendo step out as the first, and possibly not the only company...

Agreed. I think that this is just the first shoe to drop. I would bet that there will be others that follow. With the video game industry, a producer may have a massive hit that makes millions of dollars. But the next year is a lean year, and profits die off. They still have the right to monetize their assets. They aren't being greedy. Many of them employ thousands of people. Let's not forget about them either.

 

[Dolphin Squared]

IGN points out a really good point: What Nintendo should have done is a shared revenue model with YouTubers, but rather they take all ad revenues to themselves. Like I said, this is a good business standpoint, but there's always the down-side and that's towards us.

In a figurative point of view, instead of us selling items derived from Nintendo IP, they are taking us up as "volunteers" to sell these items, but all the money belongs to the company. Harsh, but I think I got the point forward.

 

[unknown_user890475]

I disagree with the idea that the video claims should go through if you're placing commentary over it and using it in fair use. Then again, when it comes to the LP without commentary, how is it really original content? Half the fun of gaming videos is watching the person's personality come through and hearing their reactions to things. If you don't have that, what's the point? You're literally just playing the game. In my mind, that's equivalent to just uploading a TV episode to your channel.

Well no. A let's play or walkthrough aren't like uploading a TV show. A TV show doesn't change. It is always the same no matter who uploads it. A game play on the other hand is always going to be different because my skill, your skill and everyone else's skill is very different and will result in a different game play.

 

[markkaz]

IGN points out a really good point: What Nintendo should have done is a shared revenue model with YouTubers, but rather they take all ad revenues to themselves.

That is the point that I brought up as well. I don't know if there are any shared revenue models between content creators and rights holders. I am only aware that the rights holders get 100% of the revenue.

 

[MarkRodriguez2012]

IGN points out a really good point: What Nintendo should have done is a shared revenue model with YouTubers, but rather they take all ad revenues to themselves. Like I said, this is a good business standpoint, but there's always the down-side and that's towards us.

In a figurative point of view, instead of us selling items derived from Nintendo IP, they are taking us up as "volunteers" to sell these items, but all the money belongs to the company. Harsh, but I think I got the point forward.

True but even though some lets plays might help sell the game Nintendo doesn't really need our help to sell them. I doubt they would give a damn if we boycott Nintendo related lets plays. It doesn't effect them in the slightest because come next big Mario or Zelda game those same boycotters will be the first ones to buy it. Bottom line is they had the right Ti do this since day one. We're just upset because they now finally decided to use that right.

 

[markkaz]

If/when other video game rights holders start doing the same thing, this will have a huge impact on Networks especially those who have a large stable of gaming video creators.

 

[ForeverAlonePrick]

Well no. A let's play or walkthrough aren't like uploading a TV show. A TV show doesn't change. It is always the same no matter who uploads it. A game play on the other hand is always going to be different because my skill, your skill and everyone else's skill is very different and will result in a different game play.

Of course you interact with it, but the fact is it's just the game. There's no adjusting of the original material there. It's not the same as having commentary and actually having personal interaction with the content.