
Nintendo's Youtube Policy is? | |||
| That is not cool, Nintendo. | 322 | 64.02% | |
| I stand with Nintendo. | 127 | 25.25% | |
| Poor Joe.. | 54 | 10.74% | |
| Total: | 503 | ||
Nintendo has gone to crap.
Current Consoles: PS3, PS4, Wii U

PC Specs: i7-4770, GTX 560 Ti, 12GB 1600Mhz DDR3
| alternine said: Yeah what Nintendo is doing is greedy and dumb, Sucks that no matter what Nintendo does, their fans will blindly defend them no matter what. If you want your console of choice to do better you can't do that. |
Im a huge nintendo fan. but i dont opposre their youtube policies. I think they are right amount. but tbh its because i dont really care if some guy from youtube doesnt get his money beacuse of this. He never really did nintendo videos before anyway
I support nintendo in this one. Joe does like nintendo is taking away the rights of everyone else to share his footage with other people. But this is not reallity, he could still let his videos on youtube, all what nintendo does is taking the ad revenue away from him. Hes pissed off because he isnt getting any money and not because he cant share his footage.
For us normal gamers out there who dont have this privalege to have a job in youtube its really no big deal. There are a lot of smaller youtubers out there who do reviews and lets plays because its fun and not because of money, joe isnt one of them.
| Goodnightmoon said: "This is the final Nintendo Angry Rant and the Final Nintendo Video on this channel. Tired of these guys claiming our videos as their own. While other companies are understanding how valuable the youtube gaming community is, Nintendo only see's free labor and dollar signs. |
and he also said "I enjoy my WiiU more than my XB1 and PS4 combined" and (paraphrased) "I spent more than $900 on the WiiU"
looks like you have no idea about the terms of that revenue sharing either, as it's only for few and older games (no freshly released ones) list, all others Nintendo will take 100% of the ad revenue from(excluding the youtube/google share ofc)
and you have to sent your video to Nintendo and wait for them to give their OK also all the revenue money goes to Nintendo first and then they'll graciously sent you your cut 60 days after a monthly tally of views
| sundin13 said: Okay, lets try this again: What do you mean when you say "it" in you other post? What wouldn't the subs be able to see? |
"You can sign up individual videos instead of complete channels if you want to continue to include non-Nintendo content...this doesn't stop you from doing that in any way."
The Nintendo approved list. His subs won't get to see most of the games that Joe wants to review anyways.
Most gamecentric game bloggers/reviewers have one channel where they discuss all video games, not just Nintendo. They work hard to get as any followers to this one channel. If they suddenly have to divide their channels, and/or make individual videos, it will be a huge hassle.

| mountaindewslave said: you can debate certain articles, but a review containing video of the actual game is not lawful (if Nintendo chooses to press the issue) because it contains material which a user much PAY to access that is being freely shared with the public. you can't do that. just like downloading music or sharing music isn't really legal online (despite people sneaking around and doing it anyway) |
Reviews are protected, at least in the United States, under fairuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.
Nintendo has every right to limit let's plays, they do not have the right to censor reviews.
Nuvendil said:
Dude, Nintendo's copyright policies are 100% wrong, even illegal. They have claimed reviews, they have claimed news stories. Those are the textbook definitions of fair use and if any of these YouTubers had the money to do so, they could kick Nintendo's butt all over open court.
As for sharing "a bit" of revenue, unless you sign up to the creators program it's all the revenue. And if you do sign up, they take 40%. That's on top of the 40% YouTube takes. And ad revenue is at a low right now so what Nintendo is doing is mental. Also, Joe gave Nintendo props some time before he got a Wii U. |
No it shows you how broken youtube is that is allowing companies to take ad revenue from reviews who are allowed under US laws to be comercialized.
What Nintendo is doing is not smart.
But what Youtubers are doing are not right either. It's all about the money these days
I thought they were doing let's plays and such because they wanted to themselves, but in most cases it's actually just about the money
| deskpro2k3 said:
The Nintendo approved list. His subs won't get to see most of the games that Joe wants to review anyways. Most gamecentric game bloggers/reviewers have one channel where they discuss all video games, not just Nintendo. They work hard to get as any followers to this one channel. If they suddenly have to divide their channels, it will be a huge hassle. |
Once again, this policy will have no bearing on non-Nintendo videos on a channel that chooses to sign up individual videos. Joe can still freely post all the non-Nintendo content he would like to post. He would only need to sign up the Nintendo related videos and share revenue on those, while keeping all of the revenue made from other videos (save the cut Youtube and MCNs take of course).
There is no need to divide any channels, there is no need to exclude any non-Nintendo videos.