Nintendo taking youtubers profit. (Also Youtubes contentid)

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Ain't anything wrong with that. If Let's Players post videos of them playing a game by that company than they have every right to get the money from it.

[The Serbian Empire]

So what? It's free advertising. Even paid advertising is no guarantee of a sale. These people are willing to advertise Nintendo for free, and Nintendo wants to make money out of them. I think it's disgusting. You know what will happen? Less people will want to do Nintendo playthroughs. How could that possibly be of benefit? Nintendo may have lined their pockets, but at the cost of losing their credibility of being the underdogs who were meant to be distancing themselves from the competition.

They should be sending these people more games, not squeezing ad revenue out of their content.

No, they won't. Content providers want page views on the channels that they pay to keep up, right?

If you can get viewers to your channel with a LP, which you don't make money from, then you have an avenue to funnel people to content that you've created that you CAN make money off of. Simple as that.

This is the secret of rant video makers who do make Let's Plays. They actually make the money off the rants, but lure people with the Let's Plays to their channels.

[Condunum]

No, they won't. Content providers want page views on the channels that they pay to keep up, right?

If you can get viewers to your channel with a LP, which you don't make money from, then you have an avenue to funnel people to content that you've created that you CAN make money off of. Simple as that.

This is the secret of rant video makers who do make Let's Plays. They actually make the money off the rants, but lure people with the Let's Plays to their channels.

Perhaps the good part that comes from this is that people won't be able to make money off of their products by bashing their products... Although I don't know what this sort of thing means for game review sites who do occasionally get the ass-end of corporate greed.

[Satosia]

A number of YouTube members report that Nintendo is issuing "Content ID Match" copyright claims en masse for videos featuring gameplay from its published titles.

The move appears to target the "Let's Play" community, in particular. Let's Play series authors often produce full video walkthroughs of featured games, with voiced or subtitled commentary accompanying gameplay.

When a "Content ID Match" is claimed for a YouTube clip, the claimant is given the right to place an advertisement at the beginning or the end of the video. Content ID Matches differ from DMCA takedown notices or outright video removals, in that matched videos remain viewable by the public and do not count as a copyright strike against their producers. All revenue earned from views, however, will go to the content's copyright owner, rather than the video uploader. The act is common for publishers like Activision, Electronic Arts, and Square Enix, but it's only recently that Nintendo has joined in the practice.

Multiple affected authors have come forward on Reddit to confirm Nintendo's new policy. To date, Nintendo's Content ID Matching spree seems to focus on recent releases like Super Mario 3D Land, Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, and New Super Mario Bros. U. Currently, Let's Play videos for older Nintendo-published games are unaffected.

Nintendo explains its position in a statement issued to GameFront: "As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database.

http://m.joystiq.com/2013/05/16/nintend ... ay-videos/
What do you think? The story is rather old but im sure it applies today.. Not just with games but with for example, music videos.

Personally I think its perfectly fine for a company to claim profit off of a game or ad that they produced. (Although it may not be the best marketng strategy) After all, they never did gve permission to the uploader to use that footage.

The LP situation is quite frankly as mess. There's actually two separate bits here - one is that Nintendo has be copyright claiming all videos with its content in, even ones covered by Fair Use. An example is the youtube video here, which is three hours long and had all its add revenue claimed due to 1 minute of a Pokemon advert they played whilst discussing the game (they re-uploaded with the footage cut out). That is obviously wrong, and is what is causing a fair bit of the vitriol.

As for videos consisting of actual game footage...bleugh. The situation is cloudy as hell. If someone is LPing, say, the single player campaign from Call Of Duty: Ghosts, then Activision would potentially have a strong case for taking the revenue, as the single player is a very cinematic experience, with not that much player input. However, if there's a video of the COD: Ghosts multiplayer, then there is a strong argument that a video of that is like a video of someone playing, say, Hungry Hungry Hippos. The company may have provided the basic assets used, but the viewers are coming entirely for the content generated by the players of the game, rather than the company. The question then becomes how much does a company deserve for having provided the presentational assets and the ruleset? Could they still claim if the player was using a fan-made texture pack? If they were playing a mod with an altered rule-set?

Personally, I lean towards saying that a company should not be able to claim all the revenue from a video with significant input created by the uploader. I probably wouldn't object if they could claim a percentage, although that may well end up not being practical. As far as I know, if someone uses a sample of a song without permission in their song, the samplee doesn't get all the revenue that song generated. The same logically applies here. Actually, looking it up, apparently they can claim all the revenue for a sample. Admittedly that seems to be case law rather than government-induced. I can't say I agree with that, but it does look like Nintendo could have a case here.

[The Truth and Light]

No site is going to tell me what extensions I can and can't use.

They can and will. If you don't like it, you don't get to use their site. Because, y'know... It's theirs?

There's something so laughable about a website deciding what extensions I can download on my internet browser.

[Unicario]

While I agree with the copyright holders that they have every right to do that, I still feel that it's a pointless thing to do -- These people spent their time and money playing this game for people to watch, and perhaps indulge in themselves. It's free advertising, and in exchange, these people, who are effectively acting as a HUGE PR firm, get paid whatever Google shells.

It's just greedy to demand they stop getting money from their commentary. I have seen many LP's that are worth them being paid.

IDK, I'm pretty conflicted on this one.

[Condunum]

They can and will. If you don't like it, you don't get to use their site. Because, y'know... It's theirs?

There's something so laughable about a website deciding what extensions I can download on my internet browser.

No one said they're deciding what you can download.

[The Truth and Light]

There's something so laughable about a website deciding what extensions I can download on my internet browser.

No one said they're deciding what you can download.

'Kay.

[Condunum]

No one said they're deciding what you can download.

'Kay.

What I'm saying is that - and this is already a thing for a few sites - they're using programs to check and see if their ads are being blocked. If they are, they warn you that you're using an ad blocker. Most allow you to continue regardless, they just want to remind you that their ads help their site.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

They can and will.

We'll see. In my experience Internet users don't take well to being told what to do.

[The Truth and Light]

'Kay.

What I'm saying is that - and this is already a thing for a few sites - they're using programs to check and see if their ads are being blocked. If they are, they warn you that you're using an ad blocker. Most allow you to continue regardless, they just want to remind you that their ads help their site.

OkCupid started doing that, and that was one of the things the lead me to leave that dismal site.

[Allentyr]

No problem here, fully within their rights.

Though it IS free advertising for their products, they really shouldn't do that, but then again, within their rights.

[The Truth and Light]

No problem here, fully within their rights.

Though it IS free advertising for their products, they really shouldn't do that, but then again, within their rights.

Actually, it's a loss to the company.

[Allentyr]

No problem here, fully within their rights.

Though it IS free advertising for their products, they really shouldn't do that, but then again, within their rights.

Actually, it's a loss to the company.

How?

[The Truth and Light]

Actually, it's a loss to the company.

How?

Someone buys their game and turns a profit buy using it to make videos. Idk, I always thought it was self-explanatory that you don't use someone else's intellectual property to earn yourself money.

[Condunum]

What I'm saying is that - and this is already a thing for a few sites - they're using programs to check and see if their ads are being blocked. If they are, they warn you that you're using an ad blocker. Most allow you to continue regardless, they just want to remind you that their ads help their site.

OkCupid started doing that, and that was one of the things the lead me to leave that dismal site.

If suggestion is enough reason to leave the site, that's a personal problem.
Edit: Although I never used that site so I dunno what they do exactly

They can and will.

We'll see. In my experience Internet users don't take well to being told what to do.

Oh please. Being told, "Hey, can you like, not use that extension when you watch our videos? We pay for it that way," is not going to cause some major uproar.

[Allentyr]

How?

Someone buys their game and turns a profit buy using it to make videos. Idk, I always thought it was self-explanatory that you don't use someone else's intellectual property to earn yourself money.

It's not really a loss to the company, the LPers aren't selling something the company sells. They're just doing commentary. It's not like they're posting videos of them watching a movie.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Someone buys their game and turns a profit buy using it to make videos. Idk, I always thought it was self-explanatory that you don't use someone else's intellectual property to earn yourself money.

While I agree with the second part, this isn't money that would go to the company anyway, so I don't see how it's a loss. Plus I personally have bought several games after reading Let's Plays of them, so there's that.

[Condunum]

Someone buys their game and turns a profit buy using it to make videos. Idk, I always thought it was self-explanatory that you don't use someone else's intellectual property to earn yourself money.

It's not really a loss to the company, the LPers aren't selling something the company sells. They're just doing commentary. It's not like they're posting videos of them watching a movie.

It largely depends on the content of each video.

[The Truth and Light]

Someone buys their game and turns a profit buy using it to make videos. Idk, I always thought it was self-explanatory that you don't use someone else's intellectual property to earn yourself money.

While I agree with the second part, this isn't money that would go to the company anyway, so I don't see how it's a loss. Plus I personally have bought several games after reading Let's Plays of them, so there's that.

I stand corrected. o/

[Allentyr]

Someone buys their game and turns a profit buy using it to make videos. Idk, I always thought it was self-explanatory that you don't use someone else's intellectual property to earn yourself money.

While I agree with the second part, this isn't money that would go to the company anyway, so I don't see how it's a loss. Plus I personally have bought several games after reading Let's Plays of them, so there's that.

Yes this, I bought State of Decay after seeing an LP of it. They actually made money.

[The Serbian Empire]

This is the secret of rant video makers who do make Let's Plays. They actually make the money off the rants, but lure people with the Let's Plays to their channels.

Perhaps the good part that comes from this is that people won't be able to make money off of their products by bashing their products... Although I don't know what this sort of thing means for game review sites who do occasionally get the ass-end of corporate greed.

It doesn't work that way all the time. The ranters will rant when a product is greatly disappointing, or when something interests them. For example, Someguy827 is a man who has made nearly fifty videos on the topic of Onision, a notable YouTube personality. Others like Bluemagus make play throughs often enough that it might be his main video type at this point. However most of the games are older ones that are years old.

[Zavea]

"oh no, my plan to make a living playing video games in my basement all day has hit a snag. damn you big money!"

[Redentro]

This is completely reasonable, and more intelligent than most ludicrous copyright claims.

For example, the person who demanded that all music based on the first 32 digits of pi be taken down from YouTube after he was the 124th person to upload a pi-based song to the site...
Because copyright...? Maybe...?

This is handled much more maturely than that was.

[Condunum]

Perhaps the good part that comes from this is that people won't be able to make money off of their products by bashing their products... Although I don't know what this sort of thing means for game review sites who do occasionally get the ass-end of corporate greed.

It doesn't work that way all the time. The ranters will rant when a product is greatly disappointing, or when something interests them. For example, Someguy827 is a man who has made nearly fifty videos on the topic of Onision, a notable YouTube personality. Others like Bluemagus make play throughs often enough that it might be his main video type at this point. However most of the games are older ones that are years old.

Yes well, Onision receives a lot of hate for quite a few reasons.

But like I said, it really depends on the content of each video. I could understand Activision being upset about someone making money off of singleplayer footage, but I doubt they'd care much about multiplayer footage, for much the same reason as the ESRB doesn't rate online gameplay.