| Shinobi-san said: 1. So yeah im struggling to see why a gaming publisher would feel entitled to the ad revenue of a video of a gamer playing their game, which they have already purchased, for reasons other than greed. 2. If this was a matter of principle and IP protection they would have reacted a long time ago, its only because some of these youtubers have gotten really popular that they now want a piece of the pie. |
1. They aren't demanding full compensation. There can still be IP damage, and that might be Nintendo's reasoning.
2. They DID react a long time ago by removing videos that made profit. People disputed this, and now their new policy is to only take a share of the profits.
If somebody makes a song and has little portions of another song in it, they usually need to credit the original song owner with royalities (unless the other owner says they can do it for free.) Or if somebody has a cartoon character in their cartoon the same is true.
It's funny, I came into this thread disagreeing with Nintendo, and slowly I am defending them more and more.
