Nintendo vs. YouTubers: Who’s right?

From the article, "On one hand, Nintendo has the right to make sure content it owns is portrayed in the way it wants. It also has the right to make money from its property. But there is a grey area here that I think goes beyond copyright law. Let’s Play videos are, in a way, a form of free advertising. Content creators build up loyal audiences and turn them on to games they may not have otherwise considered. These videos also result in additional game sales for video game companies. It’s reasonable to think game companies overlook copyright claims because it’s getting something much more valuable in return – new customers. They tell their friends, those friends tell other people and the trend continues. However, this is obviously about money to Nintendo more than anything else. And for that, it makes the company come off as petty."

[trickman888]

Nintendo.

[SilentNegotiator]

Youtubers. If a person is going to settle for WATCHING a playthrough, they were never going to play it. You don't even remotely get the experience from watching as PLAYING.

And I agree with the "free advertising" aspect because there have been lots of times that I watched some of Let's Plays to decide whether or not to buy a game.

[TripC50]

Nintendo....Fo sho....See what I did there yo? I rhymed bro. Oh no. I can't stop the flow. From my head to my biggest toe. How to stop, I don't know. My maturity, it will never grow. Somebody hold me back, bring me to a slow, before I start a mini rap show. My mind is about to blow. I see the light, now it's all aglow. Tell my momma that I love her so.....Ah!! I'm sticking with my main man Miyamoto. Save me from King Koopa Mr. Mario. But not on Youtube that's a No No...Holy crappers its late I gotta go.

[Jek_Porkins]

Sad fact is that Nintendo is right, the terms of service clearly state we don't actually own the rights to the games we buy. It just sucks that smaller Youtube people lose that piece of the pie. Wonder if Wii Viewer is going to take a hit?

[krontaar]

Nintendo, obviously. I hate "lets plays", I really dont understand the point of them. Just play the game yourself. That and the fact that the people playing them are always obnoxious, entitled babies.

[M-M]

I think "Lets Play" videos are for those who would rather watch the game being played(I have a few friends who like watching others play, instead of them doing it themselves), and/or they don't have enough money to buy every game they want, so they just watch people play the game. I do agree that there are too many of them though.

[elhebbo16]

So because you hate it other people have to? Lets plays are like free advertisment, some people dont know if they want to buy a guy until they see gameplay and thats totally understandable.

[jon1234]

some of the types of videos are cool, especially with games i love, watching my friends play fallout, and im also watching a guy on youtube play demon souls, another game i love so much, im willing to watch people play it

[jessupj]

Quote from the last paragraph:

"Nintendo has a right to make content ID claims, but this was a bad move for public relations. People are going to view this situation as Nintendo taking money from blue collar YouTubers purely out of greed. That’s not the image Nintendo needs right now. It needs all the exposure and goodwill it can get (especially for the Wii U)"

I pretty much agree with that. While I believe Nintendo does have the right to place ID claims of videos of their first party games, by doing so they will start to be compared to the likes of MS and EA; greedy companies that don't have any passion for the industry, they're only concerned with pleasing shareholders.

Honestly, I have never owned a Nintendo console and as a core gamer the Wii U does not tempt me in the slightest, but at least I can admit Nintendo makes amazing games and has a real passion for the industry. If they keep going down this route I'll probably be putting them in the same category as Microsoft.

[Embolado]

How can you have not owned a Nintendo console? I guess this was bound to happen, I officially feel old.

Nintendo has a track record of protecting the property fierce. Unfortunately I does paint them in a negative light in some eyes.

[admiralvic]

The problem with this and most likely all of these rash "Nintendo is evil due to what they did to YouTube" articles is the fact that they're going to be extremely bias and to a degree, quite manipulative.

To give you an idea, the use of Blue-Collar (hard manual labor) is used incorrectly here, since this is without a doubt a White-Collar (office) job. However, by using the term Blue-Collar, they're needlessly trying to widen the gap between them and Nintendo to ideally make far worse than they really are.

The simple fact is, this whole argument is something of an oxymoron. Lets look at another quote from the article in question.

"Would I mind if someone took one of my YouTube videos, repackaged it and made money from it? Yes I would"

If you simply flip it to, "Would I mind if someone took my game, repackaged it and made money off it?", you basically have Nintendo's argument. The fact is, Nintendo made the game or at least published it and effectively hold all the rights. Nothing entitles me, you or them to make money off their work, even if your "experience is unique" or you add some "quality voice overs", since you're still effectively making money off Nintendo's copyrighted material. In the end, it's all circular logic and at the end of the day, no one here can deny Nintendo owns the content.

Now do I think this makes Nintendo look like a worse company? Believe it or not, I don't. In fact, I think it makes the YouTubers look far worse if you ask me. There are a lot of outstanding gamers (like myself) who upload videos to YouTube, simply because they want to get the word out there or enjoy doing it. If these people care more about the money (even if it's the principal, which sounds pretty petty), then it really brings into question why they're doing it in the first place. I game because I like to game, I upload videos because I enjoy doing that and I help those that need it because they need it, not because I can make a profit from their views.

[DragonKnight]

Nintendo is right, but only provisionally. They own the IP so they have the right to make copyright claims. But those claims should end with removing the content from Youtube. What they are doing is reprehensible. Sure, they created the game, but youtubers are giving them free advertising that probably works better than their commercials or Nintendo Directs. How does Nintendo repay these people? Buy stealing their money. Nice job Nintendo. You've just ensured that no one will LP your games anymore, which renders your move to make money off LPs pointless.

Sure, your lawyers won the copyright battle, but you've taken an even greater hit in the public relations department with core gamers. Great work.

[Tetsujin]

It's down to the ultimate question, which is more important; Customers OR money. Some could argue you need one for the other to exist however a move like this can only mean the future of Nintendo is starting to fade.

[lilbroRx]

Actually, I think the problem here is the opposite of what you say with free advertising.

Many times have I seen someone say they will just watch a "lets play" rather than buy a game. I generally here when a game gets announced as exclusive for a platform said person does not want to support. A lot of people watch them when they want to know about the game but don't want to spend money.

In cases like that, it leads to a loss in sells.

[DragonKnight]

People normally say that when the publisher pulls an unpopular move, like Day One DLC or the like. LPs are also good for people who are on the fence about buying a game and don't want to watch the hand picked, possibly bullshot, gameplay moments that the developers chose to show in trailers. I can say with a decent amount of certainty that LPs have been better for sales more often than they have been detrimental.

[admiralvic]

Why do you automatically jump to the assumption that every "lets play" person does it purely for the money? I got to assume people besides myself upload videos because we like to game / help others out and I can tell you I personally haven't made a cent off any of the videos I've uploaded.

[DragonKnight]

If you're replying to me, I'm not automatically assuming that every LP'er does it for the money. I'm posting in the context that Nintendo is stealing the money from those LP'ers who DO monetize their LP videos. There are "professional" LP'ers on Youtube that Nintendo are hindering with this move. Sure, they can LP other games for money, but that's not the point. I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I'm assuming every LP'er does it for money, but I made no such claim or implication.

[imXify]

I would seperate the benefits. Nintendo can take a part of it, but at least let the youtuber have a part of it, he's making free publicity for it...

[busytoad]

Nintendo is screwed, they need to some how make any money they can since they failed hard with wii-u.

[SAYGUH]

If this happens how will I find out if a game sux or not before purchase? This just can't happen to all Nintendo game related videos. Goddamnit, need to find a way to judge gameplay in the future. A good example, let's say there's dozens upon dozens of Virtual Console games. & so you need to know what's really good as opposed to buyin every freakin title you see there. I rest my case

[Jirachi]

let's players because of fair use.

[jcnba28]

At least Nintendo isn't removing the videos unlike Microsoft and Sega.

[stragomccloud]

I think both of them are right in some regards.