102 replies to this topic

[Koh]

But don't you know, Koh? LPs of games can be done in several ways as opposed to recording a movie. So no, that does not make any sense to me.

But it's still the same game.  Regardless of how you go through it, it's still the same copyrighted characters in their copyrighted world, with their copyrighted story.  No matter how you sequence break or glitch your way through or whatever else, it's still the same end-product of The Legend of Zelda or whatever else you're playing.

[Tree]

I don't LP, so it won't effect me, but this sucks pretty hard. I may or may not have lost a bit of respect towards Nintendo.

[Din]

Nintendo has always been pretty lenient when it came to fanworks and games, and although they didn't endorse them, per se, they've tended to look the other way when it comes to stuff like, well, Zelda Classic.  Most content creators who claim "Argh, Nintendo got meeeee" are more or less saying "I'm bored with this and I want to move on/I want to move on to something official without this wad of meat hanging around my neck".  They've been very lenient in the past, and I don't think they'll be too malicious with their property.  I think they know that shutting down Pewdie Pie or another major face on the internet would be an absolutely idiotic move that would generate a rather poignant hatebase, and I doubt we're going to see much change as a result of this.

 

If the same thing happened with Square Enix, on the other hand... *shudder*.

[Nicholas Steel]

Guys and gals, don't forget that this only applies to videos they choose and the videos must be over 10 minutes in length. People wanting to monietize their videos can just trim each video down to 10 minutes or less. I also think it is perfectly fine for Nintendo to make money off of people using their work. Utilizing something someone else made, to make a quick buck is in my eyes a bit unethical.

Edited by franpa, 17 May 2013 - 11:11 PM.

[LinktheMaster]

I don't LP, so it won't effect me, but this sucks pretty hard. I may or may not have lost a bit of respect towards Nintendo.

Why?

 

I mean, I disagree with the decision.  I don't think it will really make Nintendo a lot of extra money or anything, and it is going to make some fans jaded.  However, Nintendo is being pretty reasonable about this, and they're far from the only company that does this.  A growing number of companies are starting to enact this policy.  Heck, Sega actually took down some LP videos (and even some videos that weren't really affiliated with their games at all)  and got YouTube accounts banned.  They did eventually backpedal after there was a lot of controversy, but still.  This isn't just Nintendo.  MIcrosoft, Konami, and others have similar rules, though not all strictly enforce it.

 

I guess the basic thing you have to remember is that video LPs are illegal.  You can claim fair use and things like that, but they're illegal.  Really, the companies could start shutting them down and banning them.  Technically they could sue over them.  But Nintendo is being pretty lenient about all this, saying that people are free to make these videos as much as they want.... just not for a profit.  It's a dumb decision if you ask me, but Nintendo is acting perfectly reasonable with this.

[Koh]

Why?

 

I mean, I disagree with the decision.  I don't think it will really make Nintendo a lot of extra money or anything, and it is going to make some fans jaded.  However, Nintendo is being pretty reasonable about this, and they're far from the only company that does this.  A growing number of companies are starting to enact this policy.  Heck, Sega actually took down some LP videos (and even some videos that weren't really affiliated with their games at all)  and got YouTube accounts banned.  They did eventually backpedal after there was a lot of controversy, but still.  This isn't just Nintendo.  MIcrosoft, Konami, and others have similar rules, though not all strictly enforce it.

 

I guess the basic thing you have to remember is that video LPs are illegal.  You can claim fair use and things like that, but they're illegal.  Really, the companies could start shutting them down and banning them.  Technically they could sue over them.  But Nintendo is being pretty lenient about all this, saying that people are free to make these videos as much as they want.... just not for a profit.  It's a dumb decision if you ask me, but Nintendo is acting perfectly reasonable with this.

But why is it a dumb decision that Nintendo doesn't want people to make money off of their stuff?  I still don't understand why people think that's okay.  Think about the pirate game makers or unlicensed game makers.  No one double takes to tell them they're in the wrong for selling their stuff on hardware that they didn't get a license for, but it's okay for someone else to do the same in video form?  Seriously, tell me, what is more ethical about making money off of LPs without a contract compared to unlicensed game developers for the well known consoles?  Just because you put work into it, that doesn't make it any more legal.  An extreme example could be "Hitler put a lot of work into getting the people into concentration camps, as well as money.  Therefore, it should be okay."  Very extreme, but similar effect of what people are saying.

Edited by Koh, 18 May 2013 - 08:30 AM.

[LinktheMaster]

I'm not referring to ethics at all here.  I more mean that this is Nintendo pissing off some fans who give them free advertisement for a cheap buck.  This is completely within their right, and I understand why they're doing it.  Will it pay off in the short term?  Yeah.  But regardless of whether it's justified or not, some people are not happy with Nintendo over this and are threatening to boycott them.  I think this is dumb, but it was bound to happen and anyone could have foreseen this scenario occurring.  I just don't think it will pay off for Nintendo in the long run.

 

If anyone is interested, here is a podcast from a few big name Something Awful LPers.  It drags on for a bit long, and there's some other stuff at the beginning, but they cover both sides of the argument pretty well, I think. 

[aaa2]

@franpa, koh etc, whoever thinks that LPers should not be allowed to monetize.

 

That type of copyright does not make any sense for me:

It is like a baker buying whipping cream(spending his money) and then the company producing the whipping cream getting all the money the baker made from products that had the whipping cream in them.

The Let's Player bought the game made a new product built on it and tries to sell it yet nintendo gets the income from that product. 

This pretty much does not make any sense.

All the money computer companies, car producers etc. earn should really go to maths institues by this logic because ultimately they use what mathematicians did (any kind of theory of some for that was needed to produce such products used maths in some way)!

Any cent earned in the www should actually go to CERN for creating the www (this includes every ebay purchase ever made!)

 

In the end the people that really push through copyright to its limit are not people that really do something useful! I would go so far to say that all engineering etc. by franpas definition of making a quick buck is just ripping off physics. Same way physics essentially is just ripping off maths (I am a theoretical physicist).

Edited by aaa2, 18 May 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[Koh]

I more mean that this is Nintendo pissing off some fans who give them free advertisement for a cheap buck.

People always use that as an argument, but they don't realize it's NOT free advertisement.  To begin with, they've already spent millions of dollars on whatever game the LPer is playing through.  Secondly, The money that would come from people watching that stuff online could be going to them, but instead it's going to some random people who are in no way associated with the company.  In addition, although this method of watching LPs might rake in a few customers, that number is totally negligible from the official sites that do the same thing with trailers and gameplay videos, such as IGN or whatever else.  This is a poor argument to use to justify LPers making money off of their run throughs, but I see it EVERYWHERE.

 

That type of copyright does not make any sense for me:

It is like a baker buying whipping cream(spending his money) and then the company producing the whipping cream getting all the money the baker made from products that had the whipping cream in them.

The Let's Player bought the game made a new product built on it and tries to sell it yet nintendo gets the income from that product. 

This pretty much does not make any sense.

All the money computer companies, car producers etc. earn should really go to maths institues by this logic because ultimately they use what mathematicians did (any kind of theory of some for that was needed to produce such products used maths in some way)!

Any cent earned in the www should actually go to CERN for creating the www (this includes every ebay purchase ever made!)

 

 

It's because of the fact that LPers are broadcasting (the majority of) the contents of their product to the world.  Again, going to the movie example, you do that, you're basically giving the movie out.  A game is an interactive experience, yes, but the graphics, music (story) and gameplay shown make up most of the game.  When you broadcast that, you've giving out their (almost) entire product for free basically.  But to try to make money off of it is what makes it unethical and unlawful.

Edited by Koh, 18 May 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[Rambly]

An extreme example could be "Hitler put a lot of work into getting the people into concentration camps, as well as money."

Yeah I think making crappy playthroughs of video games is pretty comparable to genocide

 

Better post: I mean, it sucks, but Nintendo have the right to enforce copyright however they'd like.  I thought this was a bigger issue when I thought they were deleting any Let's Play content, but since then I've learned that they're only enforcing copyright on people monetizing their Let's Plays, which I think is fairly reasonable.

Edited by Rambly, 18 May 2013 - 08:48 AM.
i wanted to add more on-topic content okay? okay

[LinktheMaster]

People always use that as an argument, but they don't realize it's NOT free advertisement.  To begin with, they've already spent millions of dollars on whatever game the LPer is playing through.  Secondly, The money that would come from people watching that stuff online could be going to them, but instead it's going to some random people who are in no way associated with the company.  In addition, although this method of watching LPs might rake in a few customers, that number is totally negligible from the official sites that do the same thing with trailers and gameplay videos, such as IGN or whatever else.  This is a poor argument to use to justify LPers making money off of their run throughs, but I see it EVERYWHERE.

 

 

 

It's because of the fact that LPers are broadcasting (the majority of) the contents of their product to the world.  Again, going to the movie example, you do that, you're basically giving the movie out.  A game is an interactive experience, yes, but the graphics, music (story) and gameplay shown make up most of the game.  When you broadcast that, you've giving out their entire product for free basically.  

Well, remember that this doesn't only apply to LPing.  It's any videos with extensive content from Nintendo's games.  LPs are just one category.

 

So let's say I make a review of Wind Waker.  It's a 15 minute long review, and I spend weeks collecting footage, arranging it, putting in effects, etc.  I spend a lot of money getting the best recording equipment and editing software. I script the review and do my best to make it as professional as possible.  Let's say I spend around 100 hours playing, scripting, and editing, and I spend $1000 on all the equipment to do this and other similar reviews on other Nintendo games.

 

In the review, I sing Wind Waker's praises, heavily saying that people should buy the HD remake when it comes out.  I do this because I love the game, and all I want to do is share something I love with people around the world and get other to be able to share the experience.  However, because of all the time and money spent on it, I'd at least like a little money back for my efforts.

 

Under Nintendo's new policy, my video's advertisements would go to Nintendo.  However, I obviously didn't make enough content to prevent people from buying WW.  In fact, I did the opposite by pushing the game as heavily as possible.  Is it that unreasonable to want to make at least a bit of my money back?

 

But regardless, I'm not saying that I believe that LPers deserve a bunch of money.  Honestly, I don't really for the most part.  All I'm saying is that this is what other people see, and it's pissing them off.  I don't care what you say and what arguments you give.  This is how they feel, and they are threatening to boycott.  So no matter what ethics you point to, this is Nintendo pissing people off to make money.  And I'm just saying that wasn't smart of them to do, even if they are in the right to do so.  I don't know how much plainer I can say that, but this seems to be continuously lost on you.

[Koh]

To LTM

I know you weren't referring to ethics, I was explaining for Triple A 2 XD.  I understood your point already, and why people ARE boycotting, I'm just saying their boycotts are groundless.  In a way, if you think about it, they're fighting for piracy.  Small amount of it, but it's the same effect.  As for your review example, that actually might be perfectly legal and okay due to the Fair Use clause.  I think they're really only targeting the full run videos, be it let's play or whatever else that shows the whole thing.

Edited by Koh, 18 May 2013 - 08:58 AM.

[aaa2]

It's because of the fact that LPers are broadcasting (the majority of) the contents of their product to the world.  Again, going to the movie example, you do that, you're basically giving the movie out.  A game is an interactive experience, yes, but the graphics, music (story) and gameplay shown make up most of the game.  When you broadcast that, you've giving out their (almost) entire product for free basically.  But to try to make money off of it is what makes it unethical and unlawful.

Nobody buys a game to just watch it. And i feel safe to say that this is a fact! So no the LPers are NOT cutting into nintendos domain. They are not giving away nintendo's work for free. That current copyright laws allow nintendo to do what they do is a different issue it is unlawful but definately not unethical. If it were unethical every engineer every physicist and also nintendo would be very unethical for essentially ripping off the work of mathematicians.

[Koh]

Nobody buys a game to just watch it. And i feel safe to say that this is a fact! So no the LPers are NOT cutting into nintendos domain. They are not giving away nintendo's work for free. That current copyright laws allow nintendo to do what they do is a different issue it is unlawful but definately not unethical. If it were unethical every engineer every physicist and also nintendo would be very unethical for essentially ripping off the work of mathematicians.

Not to just watch it, but some people may just want the story.  Why buy the whole game if someone's already uploaded the whole game and the story online, if that's all you wanted?  Some people didn't even want the game in the first place, and just wanted to watch their favorite LPers go through it.  That's fine, but their view (if they don't have AdBlock) still nets the LPer money (If they're monetizing).

Edited by Koh, 18 May 2013 - 09:03 AM.

[aaa2]

Not to just watch it, but some people may just want the story.  Why buy the whole game if someone's already uploaded the whole game and the story online, if that's all you wanted?  Some people didn't even want the game in the first place, and just wanted to watch their favorite LPers go through it.  That's fine, but their view (if they don't have AdBlock) still nets the LPer money (If they're monetizing).

The LPer put effort in it why shouldnt he at least get a share? If nintendo takes part of the money ok(even i think they already should have gotten their share by the sold copy just like a whipping cream producer got their share from the baker by the baker buying the whipping cream). But why do they get the full extent of that person's work. Just as a side note i use adblock so nobody gets anthing from me harharhar(this is gametrailers fault for showing me the same intel commercial that took 30 seconds before every 1 minute video for about 40 times in total(no joke!)).

Edited by aaa2, 18 May 2013 - 09:12 AM.