"unbiased youtuber"? That's a contradiction in terms to begin with, in this context. Nintendo is saying "we'll take a cut of your revenue because we're providing the base content", and that means the youtubers are going to get less money. Unsurprisingly, this is something those youtubers aren't in favour of, because it means they get less money.

But they're being childish. You don't get to buy a heap of CDs and start a radio station, broadcasting content from various musicians for free. 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.

To be clear, the issue of how much of the music company's cut goes to the artist is a completely different one, and irrelevant to this discussion (I say this because I know somebody will try to turn it into that discussion if I don't say this).

All of the entertainment industries work exactly like this. It's just that the internet has made it easier to "broadcast" things, and allows the person to reach a larger audience. In 2012, 60% of Pandora's revenue went to the music companies (and onwards to the music creators themselves). Nintendo's only expecting 30-40%. In 2014, Pandora saw a significant decrease in the proportion being paid in these royalties... to 46.5%. Still more than what Nintendo is expecting. For Spotify, it's 70%.

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.

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.

As for the other details... it sounds more like they're restricting the list of content for the beta, rather than making it the standard. They need some way, after all, to compare in the beta between the various cases. I cannot see anything else on the list of details of the program that would be considered "beta".

The only other detail that is being focused on, from what I can see, is the idea that Nintendo will do censorship. But the only line that this possibly connects with is "It can regularly take up to three business days for your registered content to be reviewed and finalized", and that sounds to me like "we can't have third-party content or other such content, so we have to check your videos first." While there is some potential chance for censorship, there is no evidence, at this point, that such censorship will happen - they simply haven't explicitly ruled it out.

I'm not going to call this the greatest youtuber program ever, or anything, but all of the whinging about it so far is misguided at best.

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".

That's exactly what I'm walking about. They might not want the "free advertizing" without the control. They may find it beneficial to have more control over their IP.

Last year when Nintendo outright flagged their content, which is worse than what they're doing now for Youtubers, people bitched about it for about a week, then they stopped talking about it and people stopped caring. That "bad press" was, is, and will be fleeting, and what they get from it long term may seem beneficial to them.

It's not like the Wii U or 3DS would have been revolutionary sucesses if Nintendo didn't do these things. The "free advertizement," wether people like to admit it or not, results in insignificantly incremental tangeble sales benefits, and Nintendo might not feel like less control over their IP is worth it.

It's not like this effects many important big Nintendo channels anyway. Gamexplain and the like were uneffected by what happened last year, and their output will likely remain the same in this case as well. It's not like there is even close to any shortage of Nintendo game coverage on Youtube with these policies in place.

Nintendo still got tons of "free advertizing" with even stricter policies last year. No, they instead got tons of lucrative advertizing in spite of it. There were still thousands of thousands of videos, reviews, let's plays, and the like of new releases like Mario Kart 8, Smash 4, Pokemon ORAS, etc when Nintendo was even more strict with claiming videos, and they were still making money off of many of them. The Luigi Death Stare became viral enough to appear on national television in spite of it.

These Youtubers can cry all they want, but they won't effect anything. They'll whine about it for a week, and maybe they'll even stop using Nintendo's content on their channels, but that's a tear drop in the well of the many thousands of Nintendo videos that will still be made. Nintendo doesn't need anyone who is complaining about this. There will still be thousands of reviews, commentary, and let's plays of Majora's Mask 3D, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Zelda U, Splatoon etc. without them, just like there were before.

The fact is, these guys feel helpless, because they are. They hold no power or influence over the content they want to use, and they want to feel like they hold more weight then they really do.