102 replies to this topic

[LinktheMaster]

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). 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.

Well, I think because honestly... the LPers work is mostly negligible in comparison to Nintendo's.  Obviously this isn't always the case.  But who put more effort?  The company that spent months/years working on it with tens of thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars on it?  Or the person who played the game for a few hours putting mostly mindless commentary on it?  Obviously this isn't true of all LPers.  Some do script their LPs, edit them, and all that.  But your average YouTube LPer (even the ones doing it for money) are typically just babbling with barely any effort at all. I'm not saying that they don't deserve money (they do), but I don't believe I can say that they deserve it over Nintendo.  Also, I'm not sure if YouTube allows splitting who gets the money.

 

(Again, just to make it known, I still don't agree with Nintendo doing this.  I'm just saying that it sort of makes sense as to why they can do it.)

[Koh]

An ideal solution would be a 50/50 split between the monetizing Lpers and Nintendo.  If Youtube had such a split, maybe it would work.  However, since they don't, that only leaves either leave them alone (which they have for QUITE some time now) or take full reign.

[Sheik]

I don't really care either. It's reasonable enough from Nintendo's point of view and it doesn't really effect anyone in a seriously destructive way.




I am actually amused about this thread. It's a great example for quite a number of things.

[aaa2]

Well, I think because honestly... the LPers work is mostly negligible in comparison to Nintendo's.  Obviously this isn't always the case.  But who put more effort?  The company that spent months/years working on it with tens of thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars on it?  Or the person who played the game for a few hours putting mostly mindless commentary on it?  Obviously this isn't true of all LPers.  Some do script their LPs, edit them, and all that.  But your average YouTube LPer (even the ones doing it for money) are typically just babbling with barely any effort at all. I'm not saying that they don't deserve money (they do), but I don't believe I can say that they deserve it over Nintendo.  Also, I'm not sure if YouTube allows splitting who gets the money.

 

(Again, just to make it known, I still don't agree with Nintendo doing this.  I'm just saying that it sort of makes sense as to why they can do it.)

I think we can actually agree that nintendo does not deserve all the money the LPers make even they put far less effort into it than nintendo because even so the LP is not nintendos work and they already got paid for the product they produced anyways. Giving nintendo a share i think would also only make sense if there was a license agreement allowing for that otherwise i think it is FAIR USE what LPers do. The reason nintendo gets the cash i NOT because they think they deserve it. It is simply because they CAN. Just like i think it is not fair to take money you find on the street(you did not earn the money so obviously you do not deserve it). Any person however will take the money lying on the street simply because they CAN.

[LinktheMaster]

Well, LPs are explicitly not fair use. Just wanted to say that.

[Hoff123]

Damn, this copyright and "piracy" stuff is complicated lol. Especially nowadays with the internet... I guess, there is no "right" or "wrong" here, because it depends on how you look at it, and how serious you are about copyright and that kind of stuff .

[aaa2]

Well, LPs are explicitly not fair use. Just wanted to say that.

Gosh how i knew that somebody would discuss terminology while it should be quite obvious what i meant. Of course i did not mean fair use as a legal term(by the way in europe such a terminology does not exist anyways its something specific to the US it seems). What i meant is fair use in that it does not hurt nintendo as in their work does not get exploited, rather somebody makes "fair use" of their work to achieve something useful for them and for other people.

 

So yes you will only find americans using the word fair use in the way you want to use it. Mostly there also only people familiar with "internet law"(not a real word).

Edited by aaa2, 18 May 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[LinktheMaster]

Gosh how i knew that somebody would discuss terminology while it should be quite obvious what i meant. Of course i did not mean fair use as a legal term(by the way in europe such a terminology does not exist anyways its something specific to the US it seems). What i meant is fair use in that it does not hurt nintendo as in their work does not get exploited, rather somebody makes "fair use" of their work to achieve something useful for them and for other people.

Ah, my apologies.  I see people oftentimes use the legal term "fair use" as a shield for everything they do.  Some people honestly believe that the fair use clause of copyright law means that they can do whatever they want with copyrighted materials if they do it for commentary reasons and/or don't get paid for it.  It's a grossly misunderstood and misused term on the internet when it comes to issues like this, so that's why I misunderstood you.  Sorry about that.

[aaa2]

Ah, my apologies.  I see people oftentimes use the legal term "fair use" as a shield for everything they do.  Some people honestly believe that the fair use clause of copyright law means that they can do whatever they want with copyrighted materials if they do it for commentary reasons and/or don't get paid for it.  It's a grossly misunderstood and misused term on the internet when it comes to issues like this, so that's why I misunderstood you.  Sorry about that.

Oh i have seen this also as excuse for piracy etc, even as an excuse for selling pirated things AND fake clothes. But that use of the word fair use really only exists in the US not anywhere else i know of.

[NoeL]

A game is an interactive experience, yes, 

/thread. Koh, you lost the argument with that single line.

 

When I was a kid (5-6 maybe) I used to walk home from school with my brother. We used to walk through a small shopping centre because there was a Street Fighter II arcade machine there, and while I never had any money to actually play it there was usually an older guy (I think his name was Bruno) that was there. So we'd all stand around and watch him play, cheering him on - sometimes for hours (well, more like half an hour). One time we were there for so long dad actually came down looking for us. From then on we weren't allowed to walk through the shops (though we still did it sometimes anyway).

 

Watching someone play a game is a fundamentally different experience than watching a movie. People watch LPs to watch the player(s) - NOT the game. It's like the people that made the stadium, ball and uniforms saying broadcasters can't make money off a basketball game. After all, it's their property being shown on screen, so why shouldn't they get the money if someone wants to broadcast it? I watch LPs because I'm interested in seeing what the player does in a given situation. Whether it's the spectacle of watching an expert play (same thing as watching a sports star), or just to compare the choices that player makes against what you would do in the same situation, it's the player that I'm watching. It's why two LPs of the same game can be completely different in terms of their entertainment value.

 

People don't buy games to watch them - they buy games to play them. Yes there are exceptions (games with little interaction that seem to be more interested in being movies), and yes there are non-interactive movie sections in most games (i.e. cutscenes), but unless you're going to make complicated legislation that differentiates interactive and non-interactive segments within a game the reasonable thing is to define games as a whole as "interactive entertainment", and a passive representation of interactive entertainment (e.g. LPs) is NOT the same as a reproduction of that interactive entertainment (which means your movie piracy analogy doesn't work).

 

Nintendo are in the wrong here.

[Nimono]

So... what happens to people like Chuggaaconroy or Nintendocaprisun now? Will they have to get shitty jobs now and abandon this LP "business"?

More like "work with Nintendo". Have you seen that NSMB2 video they did on the Runaway Guys channel? Apparently, Nintendo themselves wanted that done. I think it's fairly safe to say that Nintendo will very much leave those guys alone after that.

 

In fact, I read this whole thing as Nintendo basically saying "Hey, you guys seem to be LP'ing our games! Here, we can make sure the ads on your video relate to our stuff if you want!" Which I am 100% fine with because I don't care about the ads anyway.

[Koh]

To Noel

But we've already discussed that anyway.  The only things LPers are entitled to are their commentary, video edits, and whatever else outside of the game.  Every LP is a unique experience, but that doesn't change the fact that every LP is still the same game with the same characters going through the same copyrighted world.  Nintendo lawfully has every right to do this, and be it what some people call a "dick move" or not, it doesn't change the fact that you're messing with copyright issues.  Don't want that problem?  You don't monetize your videos related to such things (unless you have a contract or permission to).  It's not that hard to grasp.

[aaa2]

I think that nintendo does this while it does not show them from a nice perspective shows that nintendo is healthy company grabbing money wherever they can according to current laws. I still share the opinion of NoeL in that nintendo does not have the right to make money off those people.

[Shane]

Koh, you seem to be worried about LPers making money off of LPs and furthermore, you are developing a game. So may I ask you... are you worried people will make money by recording a LP of your future game(s)? Not to make this personal or off topic but I'm curious.

[Koh]

Koh, you seem to be worried about LPers making money off of LPs and furthermore, you are developing a game. So may I ask you... are you worried people will make money by recording a LP of your future game(s)? Not to make this personal or off topic but I'm curious.

To be honest, I would feel like a 50/50 split would be the ideal solution even then, but since that's not currently an option, the only other way is to show people how powerful the copyright laws actually are.  If they do LPs without monetizing, they can go wild, I've absolutely nothing against that.  If they're really into it just for the entertainment of their viewer's as you said before, even if the main company puts ads on their video, it shouldn't even phaze them, because the viewers can still be entertained by their video.

 

It's like we're walking in circles in here.  At least Nintendo isn't doing what SEGA has done and completely removed such videos.  All they're doing is taking the ad revenue, which is EXTREMELY lenient compared to what they actually have the power to do.  Very small price to pay to be able to record LPs at all without legal issues.