Exactly. If they credit the song properly and people like it, they're going to listen to it. It's not like they're going to rewind a video over and over just to listen to the song in the video, especially if it's only a small fraction of the song and not the whole thing. They're naturally going to be curious about what song it is. You can tell because people ask all the time what a song in a video is.
Nintendo + Youtube
- Thread starter Derek Souter
- Start date
Tarmack
Rhetorical Porcupine
Please don't take this personally. You're just the first in the thread to make the argument and I needed an excuse.
Copyright is a funny thing. The video game industry has convinced the populous despite zero legal precedent that video games should be treated exactly like music and movies. The problem is that they are nothing alike. When you put a song clip into a YouTube video, you have essentially given the listener the exact same experience that someone who purchased the song would have. The same is true of a movie clip or full movie. The same is not true of a video game. Watching a video of a game is not the same experience as playing it. Following that, the idea that the gameplay path a player chose (where they pointed the camera, their strategy in battle, etc) are all items that are of questionable copyright or ownership where it comes to the game company itself. The game company can copyright the visual art, music, writing and so on, but not the choice actions of the player. From there is the factor of the cult of personality, or the idea that people are watching because of the personality behind the video and that the game is irrelevant.
It is my opinion that as with other interactable items, video games are products, not licensed artwork (though aspects of them can certainly be considered art). As such no game company has any right to tell me as a buyer of their product what I can and cannot do with that product. This is no different in my eyes than posting a video of my car, guitar or any other product I have purchased. Video games are not the same as music and movies, and as such do not require or deserve the same protections. And none of that touches on fair use which Nintendo is still engaging in stifling by stealing revenue from review channels and other clearly transformative content.
Frankly, I think the reason we haven't seen legal precedent is because the game companies aren't sure they'll win. They'll gladly abuse the YouTube DMCA takedown system but that's not a court battle. Your Sega example was spot on though. They took down channels with full blown DMCA takedowns resulting in copyright strikes and channel termination for talking about the game Shining Force without showing any gameplay or copyrighted assets of any kind. This shows just how broken YouTube is where it comes to copyright.
By and large however, the game companies are being smart by accepting the overwhelming free marketing that YouTube provides. Except greedy ones like Nintendo. This is greed only. For them, the billions of views every month gifted to them by passionate fans as free marketing wasn't enough. Consider that since Google takes 45%, Nintendo would have to pay roughly double what it receives by stealing this monetization from YouTubers. But they'll come back to the table by offering a percentage and people should be happy? It's one of the dumbest things Nintendo has done lately, other than release a console with only a couple of good games.[DOUBLEPOST=1401744018,1401743934][/DOUBLEPOST]
No, you can't use that argument. An online upload of a song, or movie provides an identical experience or extremely close analog to the retail purchasers experience. A video of a game being played is nothing like actually playing the game.
Tarmack
Rhetorical Porcupine
There are a few who are big enough. The issue there though is that ContentID can individually whitelist channels. I don't see it going to court until a game company shuts down one of the big network managed channels under copyright grounds. And even then, I suspect special whitelist permissions will be granted in those cases anyways long before the automated YouTube systems take hold.
The most likely possibility IMO is for a smaller developer to overstep their legal bounds. A company without the money to fight a lengthy legal battle. No YouTuber has the money to go up against behemoths like Nintendo, not even Pewdiepie. If a small company does it and the YouTuber isn't content to settle but actually pushes it to court, we might just get a proper ruling which will act as legal precedent in the future. Not holding my breath though.
MarkRodriguez2012
Youtube Reviewer
The thing is, Nintendo owns the game can can do what they want with it. You don't have full control of the game. Yes, you can do several play stragedies, but you can't make Mario drive a car, or make Link suddenly call on Kratos and Lara Croft to help him out. There are still limits based on the way Nintendo created and designed the game, and they own them.
And again, that whole argument about 'what about all the free advertisement we give them and all the awareness and blah blah' is bs. That might work for otherwise obscure games like Minecraft that exploded due to all the Lets Plays.... but all Nintendo has to do is announce a new Mario or Zelda game and it's a garaunteed success. To think we have any hand in 'promoting' something like the next Smash Brothers game is sheer arrogance. They don't need the help of some lowly Lets Players to make millions upon millions out of games like that.
And again, that whole argument about 'what about all the free advertisement we give them and all the awareness and blah blah' is bs. That might work for otherwise obscure games like Minecraft that exploded due to all the Lets Plays.... but all Nintendo has to do is announce a new Mario or Zelda game and it's a garaunteed success. To think we have any hand in 'promoting' something like the next Smash Brothers game is sheer arrogance. They don't need the help of some lowly Lets Players to make millions upon millions out of games like that.
Tarmack
Rhetorical Porcupine
You don't understand advertising and marketing. Anyone who thinks that billions of monthly views on a product line is meaningless even to huge franchises like Mario is simply ignorant to how business operates.
MarkRodriguez2012
Youtube Reviewer
I understand the so-called 'free advertising and marketing' doesn't affect Nintendo games which are so popular they would have made millions anyways. Minecraft is an indie game that reached its super high popularity due to all the Lets Players and whatnot. But do you really think you can say that about a Mario or Zelda game? Really? What rock do you have to live under to now know that there's a new Super Smash Brothers game? Or Mario Kart 8? That logic applies to smaller and relatively unknown games featuring smaller unknown characters that need all the help they can get to stand out. Nintendo hardly needs our help. That whole self-entitled 'oh we raise so much awareness and popularity for them they OWE us a cut of pie' jazz has to stop.
Tarmack
Rhetorical Porcupine
I don't really feel up to delivering a marketing class on YTTalk. You really should take some kind of education on the topic before spouting this kind of utter nonsense about something you clearly have no knowledge of.
MarkRodriguez2012
Youtube Reviewer
Not really. The bottom line is Nintendo owns the games, and can do whatever they want with them. It might suck cause most other companies either look the other way or encourage us to monetize gameplay or review videos, but Nintendo is in their right if they want to monetize the videos of their own games.