By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 01 February 2015
Edit Thread
Shinobi-san said:
sc94597 said:
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. 

1. Yes well aware of that. I still feel that they are not entitled to any of the revenue.

2. When i say long ago...i mean well before any youtuber was bringing in significant revenue. I can assure that had these youtubers been earning peanuts, Nintendo would not care.

Songs and Movies are different entertainments mediums to games, i think ive exaplined this in my previous post. Also, i know i make this seem like a black and white topic but really theres two sides here...and its a very grey subject. In my opinion though i dont feel its right for gaming publishers to claim revenue from the lets players, but i can understand how others would feel they should.

1. Well you might not have done the cost-benefit-risk analysis that Nintendo has done. 

2. Nintendo has ALWAYS been hostile to youtubers who made a profit, since its inception. It just so happen that youtube got more popular over time and Nintendo cracked down harder (and now less.)  

My point was that in both examples an IP is not reproduced fully. It is only partly reproduce. Nintendo games have individual creations within them (cutscenes, songs, characters) and if they feel that they don't like how these creations are being represented or reproduced in a profit-seeking environment, then - yes - they have a right to remove the content. If they feel that these creations are substantial to the success of another person's content, then yes they do have a right to demand a portion (not the whole thing) of revenue. Now I agree with others that this is a bad move on Nintendo's part, but again - I haven't done the same Cost-Benefit-Risk analysis that Nintendo has done.