91 replies to this topic

[SUCCESSOR]

I see a whole entire argument of sure it's the law, but, but, but... I don't think... Well that's all good and all but what you think should be isn't law. It doesn't matter if it is popular or if you think it's fair. It is law. It doesn't matter if some companies allow LPers to do their games for less or free. That is a choice. They may be sitting on a golden seat and that's all good. All good for LPers, play their games. It doesn't change the fact that you are using someone else property to make money. You can say the experience varies player to player but the developers and publishers own the whole experience. You can make all the excuses you want but the future for LP profits is slender and slimming.

 

It is a basic fact of capitalism. Pioneers always make more profits more easily. Those that come after find it harder, more restricted, more red-tape. Pretty soon it will be practically impossible to get in the market. The Golden Age is over. PewDiePie can make himself look like a martyr and a hero to the small guys, may show off his rebel heart all he likes, but the fact is he got there in time to get away with what you can't or won't be able to soon. Like it or not sooner or later these programs for profit sharing will be the norm and Companies allowing free use will be the minority.

 

And I don't have a bleeding heart for people who make a living on these losing profits they were counting on. If that is the case then they made a bad business decision.

[Beefster]

It doesn't change the fact that you are using someone else property to make money. 

Which is something that is done all the time. If I buy a hammer and use it to make a birdhouse, which I then turn around and sell, I don't owe the hammer manufacturer royalties for using their hammer. When you buy a game, you buy the rights to do whatever you want with it besides copy it and distribute the copies (thus the term "copyright"). Gameplay is something that is created through use of the product, much like the birdhouse in the hammer example. Even when considering the creative assets, the music is probably the worst offender and may arguably have to be muted, but character models and maps are more along the lines of buying action figure sets and doing stop motion with them. Last time I checked, you don't owe Lego if you make a stop motion video with Legos.

 

As for the bigger picture, I'm more opposed to the methods Nintendo is employing in their contract than the idea of shutting down LPs themselves (mind you I'm still opposed to both). There's basically three problems with the contract:

• You must speak highly of Nintendo. You become Nintendo's puppet and you effectively become a paid advertiser with no real voice of your own.
• Nintendo reserves the right to change the cuts arbitrarily at any time. This gives Nintendo the right to screw you over on a moment's notice.
• You can only show videos of certain approved games. No more Pokemon or Super Smash Bros...

They've basically offered an ultimatum: sign your name in blood and offer your soul to Nintendo or we'll shut down your videos. I'm tired of businesses being able to do that because they have more money and better lawyers- and that's why the law needs to change to make this not an issue.

 

The furthest I would be okay with is not allowing LP's to be monetized anymore, and really that's a stretch. Really, the developers should be paying the LP-ers for advertising for them.

[SUCCESSOR]

Which is something that is done all the time. If I buy a hammer and use it to make a birdhouse, which I then turn around and sell, I don't owe the hammer manufacturer royalties for using their hammer.

Do you seriously believe that? Are are you just grasping at anything to keep arguing? Why don't you compare a donkey to a hamster next? No that is too close those things are both animals. How about a shoe and the Eiffel Tower?

 

But what you are saying is I can buy a song then make a video with that song playing on it and I won't be infringing on Copyright? How about if I use painting or other artwork to make a video? It's not another painting so it's not really a copy. Maybe I will take the plot of Inception and write a book exactly the same. It's not a movie so I am doing nothing wrong. Oh and I also put in my own personal touches in there too so it all belongs to me!

[Beefster]

Actually, there isn't really anything preventing someone from writing a book about Inception, so long as names are changed. People will notice and that will probably make it less valuable. But at any rate, it couldn't possibly do any harm to Michael Bay. It's not going to rob him of sales.

 

All I'm saying is that the distinction between a "regular product" and a creative work is arbitrarily fuzzy. Being software, video games are, in a sense, tools. Tools that are meant to entertain, but tools nevertheless. Games are interactive, meaning that the player plays a part in creating the final product. The assets are licensed to the player through being bundled with the software, but are really only building blocks toward the final product. It's more like selling an action figure play set than a movie or book.

 

I can understand needing to pay royalties for commercial use; I'm not necessarily against that. Because the final product (after interaction) does not really belong to the copyright holder, I don't think they should have the right to outright shut down transformative works. If the copyright holders only had the right to de-monetize videos, then they could still be able to charge royalties without having to be total dicks to their fans. Rather than offer the ultimatum of "sell us your soul or we'll take down your video", they would, at most, be able to say "pay us royalties or turn off monetization." The latter is far more reasonable.

[SUCCESSOR]

Actually, there isn't really anything preventing someone from writing a book about Inception, so long as names are changed.

Wrong. Even taking portions of another story has been the subject of legal battles. Even pieces of someone's work [can] still retain their state of ownership. It isn't just the whole of the product that makes it protected but the Style, Look, Mechanics, Methods, Characters, Plots, Environs, etc. Anything unique could potentially be claimed as IP. You have a personal definition of Video Game IP that is quite contrary to law. The final experience doesn't belong to you. It is part of the intellectual Property created by the developers. You pay to experience it and no matter how you experience it that experience is still the work of developers. Even if your personal experience was exempt, in LPs you still make use of Characters, Stories, etc that you have no right to use or profit off of in your videos without express permission.

 

Yet, you want to tell Companies how to manage their own property. Especially Nintendo who is notorious for their protectiveness. Affiliate programs, profit sharing agreements, or whatever are the only way to manage it. How else are they supposed to decide how much you should be required to compensate for? Would you prefer each video be evaluated by a judge to determine how much of the game was used, the value of the game, the amount of original content, etc. I imagine that would take more time than 2 to 3 days. Their system may be overbearing right now(I don't know, I am not familiar with the details), but feedback from the people who are affected and examples from how other companies manage it could ease up how they do things. They could just say no. They could just take all your revenue. Instead we are seeing a VERY stubborn and protective company making an effort. Even if that effort isn't quite ideal.

[Beefster]

Basically, the world is changing. And the law should change with it. I'm hoping that, with the next round of updating copyright law, they loosen up the law. We're in the age of information- something like nothing else in history. Our value is enhanced by the exchange of ideas. The internet empowers the common man more than any philosophy that has ever been on earth- more than the Protestant Reformation and Renaissance. And if we let greedy businesses take control of it through overpowered copyright and patent laws, we will have completely reversed all this progress we've made in creating something great.

 

Copyright, as it stands today, stifles creativity. It needs to be reformed to enhance and magnify creativity.

 

You can't prevent piracy, fangames, hacks, or Let's Plays. They're not going away. No matter how many C&Ds you send out. No matter how many sites you shut down. They will continue to exist. With the exception of piracy, letting these things continue will serve as an inspiration to all other creatives out there.

Copyright is too strong. It doesn't need to be super strong to benefit creators. So let's help the little guys out there and give them some protection from the big guys who use the law as leverage against the little guys.

[SkyLizardGirl]

I likes how you guys are realizing the times are changing, .. // How very important this topic is for Zelda Classic makers and lets plays of your very games also is at stake i now realize.'  

 

You can just about put a tax on anything even the air you breath.

 

This copyright thing is a 'spin out of control' and could cause some bloody wars you knows??

Its reason why the Top five Broadcaster media are where they are by drowning the rest beneath their ruling and power.

 

You let the brands get too powerful, you will have them ruling over us all like psychopaths with a power thirst that is 'never satisfied.' Policing everything and everyone to a dumbed down state of thinking.

 

-Worst of all :  'Companies Copying Nintendo's move could bring everything down'

 

Too a very dark age of gaming

. I noticed Nintendo is attacking some rom sites for old downloadable nintendo games that are no-longer sold also.

You can't sell roms, all people know this. I applaud those who hack and look into roms seeing how they are made with such programs as Lunar Magic for S.M.World. Snes. So more can get in on the game developing medium,  before these tyrants lock everything up.

 

i was very shocked to hear even some of my other distant friends online agreeing NIntendo does things the old way ~  Give these guys the social media just watch these guys screw it all up.

 

Next time Reggie comes into the scene i expect some booing from people at least about his

internets~  Policy being too greedy.*

 

It also makes the developers of nintendo look kinda lazy to be this worried.

 

My mother sold her Nintendo Stocks 2 months ago, because was declining and falling, .. something people do not seem to be looking at ~ the falling of Nintendo's stocks, they are getting almost dried ups to finally be concerned with policies online with youtube videos and such.

 

That is the true reason Nintendo is doing this i see,  My father does stocks and mother also too.*

 

Their stocks have been going up and down but mostly falling.

 

They now depend on 'Original developers' that are not depending upon their rehashed past franchises.

 

1 example is the developers of Shovel Knight and other such games you can find that are seeming to be newly released concepts.

'The age of the Game cart garage developers'  is returning but they have so many other choices now besides just Nintendo.

 

The new news you hear about Nintendo could all be 'SPIN' you knows?

Just Made up stories they are doing successfully ..

When it may not be entirely true in the bitter end.

 

 

They could die any day, if they don't drop this video nonsense soon, you guys realize.

 

****

 

The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

Edited by SkyLizardGirl, 09 February 2015 - 06:08 AM.

[Deedee]

God damn, some people sure are stubborn-_-

Here is a metaphor: let's say you create a video of you chugging an entire bottle of franks red hot hot sauce. You want to get paid for it, but franks demands some of the money. Not only that, but they say you must only have franks red hot videos on your channel. People see the hot sauce, but don't taste it. However, they observe your reaction and decide they want / don't want that sauce.

That is exactly what Nintendo is doing. Think about it

Edited by Arceus, 10 February 2015 - 12:10 AM.

[Koh]

I've already said that examples like that don't work, lol.  You can't use tools or condiments as a comparison.  Tools are a means to an end, and condiments are enhancers.  Games are meant to be played, but the music and graphics are part of that experience.  However, we do not have the proper rights to use them in a  a commercial work (monetizing videos is still a form of commercial use).  Doing so anyway violates CURRENT copyright laws.  Whether or not we agree with the CURRENT copyright system, and how it's outdated or not, is irrelevant to the courts, lol.

 

There are companies that don't care, and others who do, such as Viacom and now Nintendo.

Edited by Koh, 10 February 2015 - 12:46 AM.

[Shane]

God damn, some people sure are stubborn-_-

Here is a metaphor: let's say you create a video of you chugging an entire bottle of franks red hot hot sauce. You want to get paid for it, but franks demands some of the money. Not only that, but they say you must only have franks red hot videos on your channel. People see the hot sauce, but don't taste it. However, they observe your reaction and decide they want / don't want that sauce.

That is exactly what Nintendo is doing. Think about it

That's a very good example. Nicely put.

[Beefster]

I've already said that examples like that don't work, lol.  You can't use tools or condiments as a comparison.  Tools are a means to an end, and condiments are enhancers.  Games are meant to be played, but the music and graphics are part of that experience.  However, we do not have the proper rights to use them in a  a commercial work (monetizing videos is still a form of commercial use).  Doing so anyway violates CURRENT copyright laws.  Whether or not we agree with the CURRENT copyright system, and how it's outdated or not, is irrelevant to the courts, lol.

 

There are companies that don't care, and others who do, such as Viacom and now Nintendo.

Thing is: there's nothing to discuss about what the law is now... except to complain about what's wrong with it. The discussion basically ends with things being illegal yet tolerated. I argue that It shouldn't be that way.

 

To me, it isn't about the legal implications. Those are already established. I'm concerned with the moral, ethical, and future implications of these kinds of policies. And personally, I think most of them are disgusting, unnecessary, and/or just plain stupid. There's a pretty big difference between what you can do and what you should do.

 

Copyright holders, IMO, shouldn't be like a four-year-old child who won't share his toys with anyone. And when companies constantly send out C&Ds, even to free projects that aren't even really competing with their work (such as CT: Crimson Echoes), this is basically what I think of them.

 

As for my Inception book example, I realize that that was an awful example. Obviously you're going to have to change more than just the names. I guess the point I was trying to make was that borrowing ideas from other works isn't necessarily a bad thing, even if an existing work makes up the majority of your work. Obviously, you have to put your own spin on things, but it isn't necessarily a problem. It can be, but isn't always a problem. People will typically notice, and you'll naturally lose a lot of respect unless your version makes a significant improvement on the original (such as Angry Birds).

Of course, being original is 10x better than stealing ideas. Just realize that there's really no such thing as "true originality." The most "original" ideas out there are just a conglomeration of old ideas that are put together in a new way.

[kurt91]

This is going to sound absolutely ridiculous, but I'm actually considering using this as a topic for a college synthesis essay that I have to do for English class. I found plenty of articles that are against this, but does anybody know of any articles that are defending or supporting Nintendo? I've only found this one:

 

http://metro.co.uk/2...eature-5053017/

 

(Odd idea for an essay topic, but I've gotten away with using the last ZCExpo for a college project, so since the essay has to be about the Internet in some way, I figured I'd give it a shot.)

[SkyLizardGirl]

'Nintendo is DOING Great ~!!' 

  

 

  

'SPIN'  ~

 

(The handhelds are only doing great for Nintendo so far.)  

 

http://investorplace.../#.VNqldihMYpo 

  

We shall just see:  

      Handheld-phones  3DSPhones/Nintendo joining Apple to defeat Microsoft,  ~ Merely just future prediction:

 

 

I predict just handhelds continuing to zoom and Console boxes just being reduced to mere PCs for years to come.

They will 'do ok' at the same level they are ats for years to come but climbing looks kinda like 'wishful thinking, mostly for Home House consoles.'     -Hendhelds handhelds is their future.

 

You see you 'Link' your newer or current 3DS into the WII U and that's where the Resting Base for it will basically be.

You can play 3DS on bigscreen.

 

That is all i see coming +

 

Wii U will sell more units, - IF it basically 'is' the handheld and can be taken places away from home of that 'wang of a LONG Wii box' with you.

 

The Virtual reality thing' is mostly for home consoles and Nintendo's Wii U these days,

 

In 2020's people will take the Wii or whatever is next with them in thinner eye pieces to play their games never having to look down to a thumb pad again.

The 3D effects inside the Eye-pieces.

No more looking down at a screen.

 

(*I only want Nintendo to improve understand.')

 

http://www.pcadvisor...headset-review/

  

^These eye pieces are going to get 'Thinner and thinner and thinner.'  -just you watch.

Edited by SkyLizardGirl, 12 February 2015 - 03:18 AM.

[TheLegend_njf]

I just gotta reply to the comment I read about comparing this to using a hammer on a nail.

Are you serious? Lol

The hammer is a tool that's been built to serve that purpose.

However, video games, movies, and music were never created with the intention of being shared on YouTube.

While I agree that LPers increase the value of these products. It is "free advertisement" people say. But where is the actual statistics? Where are the numbers that show LPs are helping these companies in any way? Did LPers actually do any kind of research to actually support their notion that they are actually making a big difference?

It is a company's job to advertise their own products. I feel that LPers need to stop glorifying themselves as some big contribution to these companies, because it creates frustration and panic when a company like Nintendo doesn't agree.

Now besides that, I do feel at a guy level that LPers do in fact promote exposure of these products, and I do agree with their "free advertisement" argument. But I feel LPers would argue regardless if they were right or wrong. They now feel they have a "right" to be doing what they are doing because they were doing it for so long, not realizing that the companies they are "advertising" for can pull the plug on them any time.

Without real statistics or numbers, they have no real proof, they are just bloating assumptions and trying to hold into their sense of importance.

Yes, I could see this thing as a "Nintendo" thing to do. They are pretty out of touch with nearly everything today, but fuck, at least they got us thinking on the subject of fair use that we've been taking for granted for nearly 10 years.

[Beefster]

After much thought, I have revised my position. I was being stupid and stubborn.

 

I don't think LPs should be allowed to make money without permission from the copyright holder, whether implicit (through a liberal license) or explicit (namely, you get it in writing). Which, understandably this would lead to policies such as only being able to monetize positive videos. This is reasonable as long as gameplay videos can't be taken down. IMO, they are essentially the work of the player as much as the developer, but mostly along the lines of fangames/fanfics (which I think should be legal to a certain extent) and should have noncommercial protection, maybe even some nonprofit protection (i.e. charitable contributions).

 

Nintendo's policy is better than shutting the videos down, but not by much.

 

Anyway, I'm done beating this horse. I don't really have anything new to add to the conversation at this point.