Nintendo's Copyright ID Claims Issue

[giadrosich]

There was a recent announcement from Nintendo that they are going to be forcing adds on videos that content ID claim (music/visual) on Youtube, thus taking money from a partner, or a regular person who has adsense.

 

http://www.destructoid.com/nintendo-is-claiming-ownership-of-let-s-play-videos-253793.phtml Read the article here.

 

Now, legally, they have every right to do this. But what about ethically?

Yes, it could be worse, they could shut down videos entirely and not let anything be posted. But by allowing the videos and taking the revenue, is this a correct ethical choice they should be doing?

 

As a youtuber, I like to show off games that Nintendo makes, thus gaining more attention for that game. There's been increases for certain games when big LPer's showed it off. By them doing this, they take all the money from the work that people put into these videos to show their love for the company. Like I said, legally, there's no contest, but that's not the issue. Is it right ethically for them to do this?

 

Is Nintendo being greedy? Or just not thinking?

[Xylaphone]

well lper's are protected by the fair use clause of copy right law (blip is better than youtube at protecting these rights, which is the reason why the guy with the glasses posts nothing on youtube) so they couldn't pull all of the videos (they could shove so many lawers down the youtuber's throat and basically out spend the lp'er till they give up), so It's their attempt to make more money from additional exposure that already increases their profits

[Porto881]

Ethically, no I don't think Nintendo has any right to that money. Games are art, which means at the end of the day, Nintendo is a corporation of artists. So I think of it like this: if an artist paints a picture, you can look at it all you want for free, but if you want to own the painting, you have to pay. So why should Nintendo get money just from me looking at their art? Seems like sort of a greedy dick move to me. 

 

I also question sometimes whether the LP-ers themselves have any right to money. You could equate LP-ers to movie critics, who get paid all the time just for their stupid opinion, but there's still a difference. LP-ers often showcase the entirety of a game. That would be like a movie critic posting a video of himself watching a movie and commentating on the entirety of it. But then again, movies are different than games. I don't know. It's a very grey area. 

 

At the end of the day, however, it comes down to greed (which I think we all know by now). These people are artists who got lost in the money. If you do what you love and do it with passion, the money will come. But if you make it the most important aspect, you lose sight of what's important. I think that's what's happening to Nintendo. They're forgetting how to be artists.

 

I hope this makes sense, I'm kinda tired right now.

[That 1001th Person]

Guys, other companies have done this as well. Stop acting like it never happened before.

[Porto881]

Guys, other companies have done this as well. Stop acting like it never happened before.

 

Nobody is. Just because it's happened before doesn't mean we can't discuss the ethical implications of this particular case. Nintendo is closer to our hearts than other companies, after all (at least for me).

[Mallos31]

Right now, I'm cool with it. Nintendo screwed up, lost a lot of money, and honestly, they need to pick it back up so they can keep going strong. The 3DS killed them, and the Wii U has practically NO games for them to profit from (yet). Nintendo is still doing a much better job with this stuff than most other companies. I mean, look at Square Enix. They hear one of their songs, they pull the video. They see a clip, they pull the video. Chrono Resurrection. That was a tragedy. They watched until 2 weeks before release, and just said pretty much, "Hey, you guys are doing an excellent job. Really. But if you don't stop, and delete everything, we'll fine you 5million dollars." Some evidence has shown that Nintendo sees us modding and hacking their games, so they know what we like. They add things to the games that we'd like to see (I know, not even CLOSE to all of it) and they DON'T tell us to take it down, or they'll sue. Sony does it. Microsoft does it. Square does it. Most of the big game/music companies I know of do it. But Nintendo doesn't. So one little thing isn't going to hurt us. If they keep taking steps in the direction the others did, then we can start being pissed. 

 

 

EDIT: Also, Nintendo might as well start paying Cosmo. He'll be getting a billion views for them. 

[BullockDS]

Concerning LPs: I don't see why this is so horrible; LPers really shouldn't be making money from playing through a game they didn't create. If they really just wanted to show the game off, they'll be just fine doing so without monetizing their videos. However, I'd be fine if LPers still got a bit of a cut of money for their commentaries (content they DID make), but half/most cash would still go to the company holding the intellectual properties of the game itself, since playthroughs/LPs show off most/all of a game's content, and is the primary driving force of the commentaries.

 

Also, in terms of "greed", this is pretty much nothing in comparison to companies that outright demand video pulls and bans just for showing off any fraction of content (e.g. remember SEGA and their

); THOSE are companies that I find to be detestable. With Nintendo's intent to not actually incite bans/removals, however, I don't see anybody actually getting hurt by this, at least not seriously; most LPers shouldn't live off of their LP revenues (and if there are those who did lean on YT revenue, then honestly, it's kinda stupid to expect to live off of somebody else's work).

[SeithDarkwraith]

Nintendo should not be doing this. Here's why:

Too many Copyright claims/strikes on youtube can result in a banning of your account.

These ads will remove all revenue from people who have this as their job, instead of the gaming networks now paying their LPers, they are now gonna have to give that to Nintendo.

Peoples jobs will be hurt from this, as stated ^.

Also, for the people who use facecam, (Like me,) that would be claiming ownership not only on the video of the game itself, but ownership over the person. That is just... what.

Furthermore, Nintendo doesn't even own the rights to some of these games anymore, prime example being Zelda on the NES. Copyright has expired, so in that area they have no right to be doing this.

Edited May 17, 2013 by SeithDarkwraith

[Librarian]

Lol, didn't Micro$oft ban the use of 'Halo' in youtube videos, we can see how well that turned out... silence.

This will never work, people have been illegally downloading Nintendo roms online for years now, they've barely been able to do a thing about it, and they think they can get money out of people who post videos of the games, nice try Nintendo, good luck.

[giadrosich]

Nintendo should not be doing this. Here's why:

Too many Copyright claims/strikes on youtube can result in a banning of your account.

These ads will remove all revenue from people who have this as their job, instead of the gaming networks now paying their LPers, they are now gonna have to give that to Nintendo.

Peoples jobs will be hurt from this, as stated ^.

Also, for the people who use facecam, (Like me,) that would be claiming ownership not only on the video of the game itself, but ownership over the person. That is just... what.

Furthermore, Nintendo doesn't even own the rights to some of these games anymore, prime example being Zelda on the NES. Copyright has expired, so in that area they have no right to be doing this.

I thought they had copyright for like...70 years on that stuff?

[HeavyZ]

It shouldn't be about money anyways.. We all hack games, make new ones out of old ones, and create something we are proud of. We do somthing and breath new life into something we love. We don't make any money, we do it because it's a passion. Trust me even though nintendo has screwed up a lot they are not hurting for money. People make video reviews of games without seeking any money all the time. Why? because they believe they have good judgement, and it can either promote an excellent game, or keep people from wasting their money on a bad one. They enjoy doing it.

Now if someone gets paid for reviewing games at a company or a company they own... say someone at Gameinformer or IGN then they have every right to that money.

At a company like Gameinformer what you write is judged before it is published, someone has that job because they worked hard to get it, and they probably don't have as much freedom as a Lper would have to choose what they want to review, or not. It wouldn't be considered as much as a "job" I think if people want to make good money they should work hard for it. I don't know much about how Lpers make their money so forgive me if I'm wrong. I'm just making a guess, but hey.. they could be entitled to that money as much as someone who works at a company like Gameinformer *shrugs*

What I do know for a fact is that it is wrong for Nintendo to claim money for something like that, they don't claim money from companys like Gameinformer.

 

The main point is, Nintendo shouldn't be getting greedy. They shouldn't be making video games for the money, and they shouldn't be taking money from people who made reviews of their games. Reviews that make them more money anyways. Yes I think they deserve money for making their games, it takes money to make them, they need money to live, they have things they want. They should get that much and extra, but that's not what Nintendo should be about. That's not why they should be in the gaming buisness, but that is what this whole deal with the Lpers is. I don't think it's ethical.

[SeithDarkwraith]

 

Nintendo should not be doing this. Here's why:

Too many Copyright claims/strikes on youtube can result in a banning of your account.

These ads will remove all revenue from people who have this as their job, instead of the gaming networks now paying their LPers, they are now gonna have to give that to Nintendo.

Peoples jobs will be hurt from this, as stated ^.

Also, for the people who use facecam, (Like me,) that would be claiming ownership not only on the video of the game itself, but ownership over the person. That is just... what.

Furthermore, Nintendo doesn't even own the rights to some of these games anymore, prime example being Zelda on the NES. Copyright has expired, so in that area they have no right to be doing this.

I thought they had copyright for like...70 years on that stuff?

 

Copyright only can last 15-20 years at a time.

[giadrosich]

 

 

Nintendo should not be doing this. Here's why:

Too many Copyright claims/strikes on youtube can result in a banning of your account.

These ads will remove all revenue from people who have this as their job, instead of the gaming networks now paying their LPers, they are now gonna have to give that to Nintendo.

Peoples jobs will be hurt from this, as stated ^.

Also, for the people who use facecam, (Like me,) that would be claiming ownership not only on the video of the game itself, but ownership over the person. That is just... what.

Furthermore, Nintendo doesn't even own the rights to some of these games anymore, prime example being Zelda on the NES. Copyright has expired, so in that area they have no right to be doing this.

I thought they had copyright for like...70 years on that stuff?

 

Copyright only can last 15-20 years at a time.

 

From Nintendo's website:

 

Haven't the Copyrights for Old Games Expired?

U.S. copyright laws state that copyrights owned by corporations are valid for 75 years from the date of first publication. Because video games have been around for less than three decades, the copyrights of all video games will not expire for many decades to come.

[SeithDarkwraith]

 

 

 

Nintendo should not be doing this. Here's why:

Too many Copyright claims/strikes on youtube can result in a banning of your account.

These ads will remove all revenue from people who have this as their job, instead of the gaming networks now paying their LPers, they are now gonna have to give that to Nintendo.

Peoples jobs will be hurt from this, as stated ^.

Also, for the people who use facecam, (Like me,) that would be claiming ownership not only on the video of the game itself, but ownership over the person. That is just... what.

Furthermore, Nintendo doesn't even own the rights to some of these games anymore, prime example being Zelda on the NES. Copyright has expired, so in that area they have no right to be doing this.

I thought they had copyright for like...70 years on that stuff?

 

Copyright only can last 15-20 years at a time.

 

From Nintendo's website:

 

Haven't the Copyrights for Old Games Expired?

U.S. copyright laws state that copyrights owned by corporations are valid for 75 years from the date of first publication. Because video games have been around for less than three decades, the copyrights of all video games will not expire for many decades to come.

 

Hm. That may be for consoles I was thinking of.

[Xylaphone]

 

Hm. That may be for consoles I was thinking of.

 

 

 

where you thinking of source code? I think code is only copy writted for like 20 years

[Gump]

How long does a copyright last?The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.

From Copyright.gov

 

As for the issue, I don't really see a problem. Some people (including myself) watch LPs so that they don't have to buy a game if they cannot afford it. It's only fair for the consumer at the end of it all pay a price to the people who made the original work. Not to mention, Nintendo isn't really being greedy. They're trying to keep in business, and I think this is a fair tradeoff.

[Airikita]

At least they're not being dicks like WMG and shutting down videos rather than saying "hey, we can gain from this." points to Nintendo. As far as ethical issues go, it doesn't faze me. I became a hacker to go "hey Nintendo, you can do this!" and I'm down with giving my ideas to the public through their games, and showing interesting things. If they want to take my ideas from hacking their games, it's fair game really.

 

I guess it depends on the issue, as long as my videos are still viewable to others, I'm happy.

[Secant]

This is a particularly gray area to me, and I'm not sure I feel comfortable with Nintendo's decision here. On one hand, yes, LP videos showcase a video game that they own the exclusive rights to, but I hesitate to say that gives them grounds to do whatever they want with these videos. My reasoning is that, at least for most LPers, there is a huge amount of work and dedication that goes into creating these videos, and the commentary is in-depth enough that I feel as though it stands alone outside the game itself, and brings the viewer a different experience of the game through the eyes of the LPer. That content--that experience--does not belong to Nintendo, nor will it ever. Particularly considering that some people have taken up this hobby as a career by forming a YouTube partnership, this seems an even more greedy move by robbing these individuals of the only income they have. I also refuse to accept the excuse of Nintendo's financial decline of late; this is indicative of poor performance as a company, and calls for an internal change in the dynamics of game production, rather than extortion of the company's dedicated fans.

[Conker]

If I upload The Avengers to YouTube with my commentary over it, it doesn't mean I own what I'm commentating, or that it's different enough. Marvel would take down my video, and I'd probably end up in court, too.

 

People who LP Nintendo games (myself included) should feel lucky that all they're doing is claiming some money, and that's all.

 

Want to make money off of your LP's? LP other games, for fuck's sake... you're playing on a Nintendo console, and last I checked, every Nintendo console ever is filled with third party games Nintendo has no reign over, so quit complaining and start a series on one of those.

 

And if someone's actually making their LP's for any other reason than greed(really, want money? go get a job at a fucking McDonald's, or just, *gasp*, LP other games?), you'll still resume your Nintendo LP's for fun, and for your fans who enjoy them.

 

People have zero reason to complain, in any way shape or form.

 

 

---

Sent from my cell phone, because ancient satellites from across the cosmic web are lame.

[Secant]

Want to make money off of your LP's? LP other games, for fuck's sake... you're playing on a Nintendo console, and last I checked, every Nintendo console ever is filled with third party games Nintendo has no reign over, so quit complaining and start a series on one of those.

 

...

 

People have zero reason to complain, in any way shape or form.

 

I think the bigger issue is more the principle that Nintendo is imposing advertisements in people's videos in order to forcibly obtain some profit out of content that, at least as far as the commentary goes, they did not create. I'm reasonably confident that most people who make LP videos for a living aren't doing it for the money, but rather because they have a large fan base that they want to keep happy and it's an enjoyable job to have.

[Conker]

They can still make the videos, if it's not about money; nothing is stopping them, and I believe ads only show on monetized Nintendo LPs.

If they want money, third party games are always an option, and nothing is stopping them still. So, if they want to keep them happy, keep them happy instead of complaining over something pointless.

 

Right?

[giadrosich]

The issue was not whether this is legal or not, but if it's ethical. It IS perfectly legal for them to do this. But is it ethically okay?

 

I'm not complaining, just bringing up an issue that has effected a lot of people.

[Conker]

Eh, I think it's ethical. It shouldn't be effecting people at all. :|

 

If some of the more famous YouTubers spend more time complaining about this rather than starting a new LP series they can make money off of, then it's a problem for them.

[giadrosich]

The RunawayGuys are recognized by Nintendo themselves. Now, if they are able to keep the money they earn, why shouldn't other LPers?

[Conker]

Maybe the RunawayGuys need to pay for some kind of license? Dunno if they do or not, just sayin'.