Quantcast
Pewdiepie Complains against Nintendo Youtube Policy

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Pewdiepie Complains against Nintendo Youtube Policy

fps_d0minat0r said:
DonFerrari said:

You said it all... clips, not the entire thing... please entertain me on the basics of copyright and fair use on presenting 100% of someones property and just having your comments over it.

And also please show how driving the car around is similar to end user as playing VGs, and also why automakers will get money (or pay for advertsment depending on the case) when any tv production shows their car with name or brand/logo if it only show a glimpse of the car...


Well even for games, its not the entire thing.

If you think it is then send me one video where an entire game has been shown. Its always just clips from certain modes, certain characters, certain levels and so on.

Yes there are videos of speedruns which show a game being completed (still not 100%), but they are not the videos taking in money because as I mentioned already, raw gameplay is worthless. Its the extra content youtubers add to gameplay that makes it worth something.

I already told you cars and games are not designed with the purpose of watching/listening, whereas music and movies are. If you are still unable to figure out how that relates to copyright, I cant help you.


A 3 min clip of a movie compared to more than 1h footage of the game recorded is equivalent to you?

Speedruns normally aren't 100%, just the bare minimun to finish the game... raw gameplay is worthless, and no game included and just the comments about anything not game related?

I understood your point, but you still didn't answered why if someone wants to portray the car they must pay, receive or at least have permission. And copyright pretty much states you aren't allowed to broadcast it without authorization.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
KylieDog said:
sc94597 said:

The article you posted was specifically on the connection between Pewdiepie and higher sales. Also I accomodated for the difference between consecutive years in my analysis. So the age of the game doesn't matter since we are comparing to the previous year. Nobody is arguing that youtube doesn't influence sales. The argument is that no single youtuber influences sales at a huge level, and the overwhelming majority of videos that influence sales are not let's plays. Minecraft and Flappy Bird would've been popular without youtube. I'm not downplaying anything. I'm combating the hyperbole and exaggeration found by some people. 


@first bold, no.  To quote my link "If you head over to YouTube and put in 'Skate 3', you'll find tonnes of comedy videos from prominent YouTubers playing Skate 3. And these videos have been watched by millions."  It was NOT about pediepie only.

@second bold - Evidence?  Flappy Bird was nothing before youtube and Minecraft only exploded after being featured on youtube so much.


1. One small sentence hidden within the article does not change the article's thesis. 

"How PewDiePie fired Skate 3 back into the charts"

2. Where is your evidence that the games were popular because of youtube? Correlation =/= causation. 



Scoobes said:
Dusk said:
Intrinsic said:

And you fail to see the big picture. How much do you think Nintendo stands to make from youtubers showing parts of their game? 

How much do you think they have to make from people buying a WiiU and games from having watched one of such videos? 

What I am saying is simple, YouTube and someone playing my console is free marketing as far as I am concerned. I would rather have as many people see my games and hopefully end up buying my console, than they see more of my competitions games.


I think it's you that fails to see the big picture. This is not hypotheticals. It's IP's used without consent, that is the bottom line. It's copywritten materials used without permission. You may own the material for use, but not for distrobution in any form. 

The same could be said of Sony, Microsoft or any big name publisher. Yet I'm not aware of any other publisher that has implemented a system like this. When youtube identified all these videos as copyrighted material, the big publishers asked video makers to contact them about any problems and they'd get them sorted (no financial penalty involved).

Nintendo are fully in their rights to introduce this system and to protect their IP. However, that doesn't mean it's a good idea, and the fact that other publishers haven't introduced this is telling. All Nintendo is achieving with this is to reduce the online "word of mouth" marketing that youtubers provide.

Pretty sure MS and EA have actually. Not exactly the same, but quite close. With MS, with the exception of Youtube, content creators cannot make any money from it that uses any of MS's stuff and even allows MS to use this created content without consent. So if someone comes up with a great idea on a youtube video or anything like that, MS is fully able to take it and use it for thier own gain. 

Give it time, more will follow suit.



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

HollyGamer said:
menx64 said:
dont care about most youtubers. I enjoy playing my games, not watching people playing them. If every penny nintendo gets goes towards star fox, Fzero, metroid or the next Bayo, then by all means take that 40% all you want!!

even with low sales of Wii U, Nintendo is far more profitable then what most people think, it's not about how this will affecting their buget to make a good games. They can make the games with their current profit they had.


I am not againts LPs, but I dont blame Nintendo for jumping on easy money.



Menx64

3DS code: 1289-8222-7215

NNid: Menx064

Dusk said:
Scoobes said:
Dusk said:
Intrinsic said:

And you fail to see the big picture. How much do you think Nintendo stands to make from youtubers showing parts of their game? 

How much do you think they have to make from people buying a WiiU and games from having watched one of such videos? 

What I am saying is simple, YouTube and someone playing my console is free marketing as far as I am concerned. I would rather have as many people see my games and hopefully end up buying my console, than they see more of my competitions games.


I think it's you that fails to see the big picture. This is not hypotheticals. It's IP's used without consent, that is the bottom line. It's copywritten materials used without permission. You may own the material for use, but not for distrobution in any form. 

The same could be said of Sony, Microsoft or any big name publisher. Yet I'm not aware of any other publisher that has implemented a system like this. When youtube identified all these videos as copyrighted material, the big publishers asked video makers to contact them about any problems and they'd get them sorted (no financial penalty involved).

Nintendo are fully in their rights to introduce this system and to protect their IP. However, that doesn't mean it's a good idea, and the fact that other publishers haven't introduced this is telling. All Nintendo is achieving with this is to reduce the online "word of mouth" marketing that youtubers provide.

Pretty sure MS and EA have actually. Not exactly the same, but quite close. With MS, with the exception of Youtube, content creators cannot make any money from it that uses any of MS's stuff and even allows MS to use this created content without consent. So if someone comes up with a great idea on a youtube video or anything like that, MS is fully able to take it and use it for thier own gain. 

Give it time, more will follow suit.

Err... no, that was very different and actually worse in many respects (assuming we're thinking of the same thing). EA and MS actually (quietly) paid youtubers to help promote their content. They didn't take any of the money away from youtubers... they added to the pot and bribed them, lol. 



Around the Network

everyone complains about him acting so retarded and he ignores it. So it would just be fair if Nintendo ignores him.

I mean seriously talk to Nintendo about this issue  DONT make a "anti nintendo(policy) video" because that just proves that you dont care about them and that your wallet is more important to you than your "childhood friend" Nintendo is.  And that you probably only play Nintendo games because you can make money by doing so and NOT because you like the games.

Its like being a little kid wanting revenge.



Scoobes said:
Dusk said:
Scoobes said:
Dusk said:
Intrinsic said:

And you fail to see the big picture. How much do you think Nintendo stands to make from youtubers showing parts of their game? 

How much do you think they have to make from people buying a WiiU and games from having watched one of such videos? 

What I am saying is simple, YouTube and someone playing my console is free marketing as far as I am concerned. I would rather have as many people see my games and hopefully end up buying my console, than they see more of my competitions games.


I think it's you that fails to see the big picture. This is not hypotheticals. It's IP's used without consent, that is the bottom line. It's copywritten materials used without permission. You may own the material for use, but not for distrobution in any form. 

The same could be said of Sony, Microsoft or any big name publisher. Yet I'm not aware of any other publisher that has implemented a system like this. When youtube identified all these videos as copyrighted material, the big publishers asked video makers to contact them about any problems and they'd get them sorted (no financial penalty involved).

Nintendo are fully in their rights to introduce this system and to protect their IP. However, that doesn't mean it's a good idea, and the fact that other publishers haven't introduced this is telling. All Nintendo is achieving with this is to reduce the online "word of mouth" marketing that youtubers provide.

Pretty sure MS and EA have actually. Not exactly the same, but quite close. With MS, with the exception of Youtube, content creators cannot make any money from it that uses any of MS's stuff and even allows MS to use this created content without consent. So if someone comes up with a great idea on a youtube video or anything like that, MS is fully able to take it and use it for thier own gain. 

Give it time, more will follow suit.

Err... no, that was very different and actually worse in many respects (assuming we're thinking of the same thing). EA and MS actually (quietly) paid youtubers to help promote their content. They didn't take any of the money away from youtubers... they added to the pot and bribed them, lol. 

It's a different approach to do the same thing. We are talking about different things though. Check out MS most recently updated youtube policies. Nintendo's program is a beta program that seems to be in an attempt to get more youtubers to feature NIntendo material and exclusivity but also allows for them to make some money through it without breaching any IP legal mumbo jumbo.

All of this stuff is going to be fairly big this year I think with all the new youtube policies and content OWNERS starting to have more ability to take back what is theirs.



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

Dusk said:
Scoobes said:

Err... no, that was very different and actually worse in many respects (assuming we're thinking of the same thing). EA and MS actually (quietly) paid youtubers to help promote their content. They didn't take any of the money away from youtubers... they added to the pot and bribed them, lol. 

It's a different approach to do the same thing. We are talking about different things though. Check out MS most recently updated youtube policies. Nintendo's program is a beta program that seems to be in an attempt to get more youtubers to feature NIntendo material and exclusivity but also allows for them to make some money through it without breaching any IP legal mumbo jumbo.

All of this stuff is going to be fairly big this year I think with all the new youtube policies and content OWNERS starting to have more ability to take back what is theirs.

I had a quick look and the MS policies look like business as usual from what I can tell. Revenue from Youtube and Twitch ads are excluded so youtubers still get to keep 100% of the ad revenue generated. The rest looks like obvious IP protection (no reverse engineering, no offensive content) that would have been in place before, even if not explicitly stated.

For most, I don't think much is going to change. I don't think most publishers will want to interfere too much with "word of mouth" advertising.



Scoobes said:
Dusk said:
Scoobes said:

Err... no, that was very different and actually worse in many respects (assuming we're thinking of the same thing). EA and MS actually (quietly) paid youtubers to help promote their content. They didn't take any of the money away from youtubers... they added to the pot and bribed them, lol. 

It's a different approach to do the same thing. We are talking about different things though. Check out MS most recently updated youtube policies. Nintendo's program is a beta program that seems to be in an attempt to get more youtubers to feature NIntendo material and exclusivity but also allows for them to make some money through it without breaching any IP legal mumbo jumbo.

All of this stuff is going to be fairly big this year I think with all the new youtube policies and content OWNERS starting to have more ability to take back what is theirs.

I had a quick look and the MS policies look like business as usual from what I can tell. Revenue from Youtube and Twitch ads are excluded so youtubers still get to keep 100% of the ad revenue generated. The rest looks like obvious IP protection (no reverse engineering, no offensive content) that would have been in place before, even if not explicitly stated.

For most, I don't think much is going to change. I don't think most publishers will want to interfere too much with "word of mouth" advertising.

I think you missed the part where if youtubers use anything from MS IP's then MS has the ability to use that content as their own. So if it's ideas, reviews, anything that is even slightly related they can fully take it. Sure MS isn't charing anything for the use, except anything that might come from it in the future. So if someone comes up with a great idea for a new franchise or gameplay mechanic they can steal it without reprocussions from the youtuber. Not too shabby on MS's end. It has also made any private sites that have add revenue that uses MS IP's an offence. That have just put that youtuber in a 4x4 cell.

You are right though, it is business as usual.It's just a different tactic.



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.