sc94597 said:
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. |
1. Dont see how that has any relevance to my stance on it. As a matter of principle, I do not feel that they are entitled to any of the profit.
My stance on this topic is not about whats legal and whats not, its about what i feel is the right thing to do. So yeah Nintendo's analysis means absolutely nothing to me in this regard. 







