| Aielyn said: Radio stations pay a significant amount of money to the various music companies to be able to broadcast their music, and then they (the radio people) get money from advertising on the station. It doesn't matter whether it's just straight playing of music or an extensive commentary on said music, they are using the music to make money, and thus the people who created the music get to profit off it, even if the playing of their music on the radio boosts their CD sales. How is this any different than buying a game(paying money to the people who made it), LPing it and making money off the ads? These child-like people insist on being paid for playing video games, talking about video games, etc... and not even giving a cut to the company providing the bulk of their content. You can proclaim as much as you want that they're doing free advertising for Nintendo, but it's just not true. They're being paid for their advertising, through ad revenue. And they're getting that revenue whether they're praising or condemning Nintendo or the game. Nintendo is simply insisting that, since you're using their content to make money, they get a reasonable cut of it. If you are not paying to have someone advertise your product, it's free advertising. The "cut" the company gets is the money they paid to own the game. Perpetuating that only 9-5 jobs are "real jobs" is the issues with the stigma of the phrase "real jobs". You didn't say this directly but it's insinuated and mentioned by others in this thread. But off topic so I digress. We can argue about what is a "reasonable cut", but anybody suggesting that Nintendo shouldn't be getting a cut at all is being childish. I'm starting to think anything you don't agree with is "being childish". |
"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"
