Yes it is.  Every lets play could be taken down if the publisher of the game wanted to, and theres nothing they could do about it.

Nintendo is just being excessively anal, but I agree with alot of what they're doing

tl;dr I don't watch let's play videos, but I'm sick of seeing media coverage on this

Angry Joe's last video that was taken down was not a let's play video.

It was an edited cut of plays sessions he did with friends that focused on showing moments of great fun, with the commentaries that go with them, to show people how much of a good time he had with the game. Which made the video fall under fair use.

Let's Play videos are playthroughs that go from one point to an other without pause or editing.

This is the real split. If we dont count the youtube revenue, because that is a constant, then you are getting a 42% out of the 60% possible, that´s a 70% of the possible revenue, and they are taking the other 30%.

But If you count the youtube revenue then that´s the split. Nintendo is getting just a 18%, while youtube takes 40% and the youtuber gets the 42% (he actually wins)

(probably I´m going to make a thread about it because everybody is missunderstanding this and thinking that youtube and Nintendo takes like the 80% of the revenue, and NOP)

You're confusiong Youtube's Terms of Service and the law.

The content belongs to Nintendo and they are free to control it how they see fit. Angry Joe needs to shut the fuck up and get back to entertaining his drones. Right or wrong, on Nintendos head be it.

Nintendo aren't the only ones doing this (or something similar), but they are part of a minority. Most of the industry appears to believe it's an entirely beneficial relationship (or at the very least no harm), with many publishers actively paying content creators directly to cover their games. Even Nintendo appears to believe it's beneficial to them, they just want a piece of the pie on-top of that.

"Agree, sony should do the same. "

would pretty much make the whole emphasis on sharing and editing that they are pushing pointless

"These lets play viewers who arent playing or buying the games are hurting gaming culture and industry"

how?

This. I havn't heard anyone I watch who mainly does Nintendo content even make a peep.

Fai Use doctrine doesn't just apply to non-monetized creations.  How do you think literary critics who quote massive sections of creative works make money when they publish their article?  How do you think art critics make money when they publish an article containing pictures of the very paintings they are discussing?  Because Fair Use protects them.  Fair Use doctrine is an important part of copyright law which exists as a check to copyright holder's power to prevent censorship of criticism and discussion.  The only area where not making money helps your case is with works that are arguing for fair use purely on the grounds of being a transformative work.  In other words, fan art.  But even then it has very little bearing.  But commentary, parody, review, critique, discussion, all of these content forms are protected under fair use and are their respective creators' property alone.  The copyright holder has no right to impede them in any way.