On one hand you have Gamestop.
On the other hand, you have consumers feeling entitled (like Jim).
And people wonder why this industry is going in the wrong direction.
Hard to go in the right direction when everyone that supports it is wrong.
Theft is theft. If a thief can't handle the fact that they're a thief they need to stop trying to play the justification/mind tricks game with themselves and stop stealing all together.
The video is a comedic hyperbole abt yt content policy and nintendo's ignorance on fair use law.
I doubt it's Nintenod ignorance. Most likely they ahve program just scanning for content and when it finds it sends out warning. The program probably can't tell if the content was a legal fair use usage or an illegal "let's play" use.
I say illegal "let's play" becuase I honsetly can not see how let's plays are in any way fair use and not just blatantly showing off teh game, such as if you uplaoded a movie online. Illegal.
And ppl are streaming (and making money from )tons of nintendo games on twitch. You knw this is just a yt thing and nintendo taking advantage of it
See now you're describing legality again when it's about morality. "Legally gray" != "morally gray".
Yes, and to me that is how I define this case of morality, with the legality of the whole thing, until someone can prove legality against nintendo in this case, I will consider it morally gray, not morally wrong. Adding this part to this as well Namely since I believe content creators are morally gray for uploading complete playthroughts of games, sometimes even without commentary.
Do not conflate legality with morality. It used to be legal to have slaves couldn't vote in the US. Was that ever "moral" just because it was "legal"? It used to be legal to kill Jews in Germany. Was that ever "moral" just because it was "legal"?
You added "until someone can prove legaliy against Nintendo.....", which is basically "until the law says something is illegal, it is therefore legal" and because it is "therefore legal", it is "therefore moral". Thing is, for example, it's still illegal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia. It's immoral for women to drive? I mean, it's illegal there, and legality and morality are the same in your opinion. Hell, in the US it's "legal" to lock somebody up in prison for life because they were caught with weed on them. Is that "moral"? If so, then in the same breath, you have to say it's "moral" that the affluenza kid basically got a slap on the wrist (the affluenza kid was an underage kid who got drunk (drinking is illegal at age 16 in the US), got high off Valium (illegal if not prescribed) and weed (illegal) then plowed his dad's truck into two other vehicles, killing 4, paralyzing 1, and giving terrible injuries to everyone else. But because he was rich, that meant he "didn't know his actions had consequences" because it's something he "never learned".....so he just got probation), which would be disturbing.
I get that you say that some people upload complete playthroughs without commentary, and that, I believe is wrong. But there was a big hubbub about it recently, regarding fair use. GradeAUnderA did a great video about how it was bullshit how reaction based YouTube pages could just upload the entirety of original content, put it in a square in the corner of the video, and then claim revenue, sometimes with "no commentary" and have a bullshit defense (like Tyrone Magnus who said something to the tune of "my facial reactions are a part of the critique"). They'll have entire original content in that corner square, steal all the views from the smaller channels, and then when the smaller channel files a 3rd party claim because it's not proper use of Fair Use, the reaction channel will delete the video.
If one entity wants to ignore Fair Use and copyright law, why should they be respected? They'll just keep screwing you over because they won't learn their lesson that what they're doing is wrong, like what Nintendo does with actual cases of fair use. Until YouTube fixes their copyright claim system, people will continuously be punished because big companies like Nintendo can go around and say "there's a picture of Mario in this vid. Take it down or give us the money" and us regular, non-billionaires don't have the money to sue (so, saying "sue Nintendo on that" isn't really feasible) so Nintendo can keep putting people down. You think that's "moral"?
You shouldn't pirate Nintendo games because of some law. You should pirate because they ignore consumer feedback over and over again (Federation Force, Color Splash, SF0), never learn from their awful mistakes (Switch is another underpowered motion control toy) and don't do anything with their incredible software line-up (virtual console except for overpriced SNES games).
