Nintendo etc. claiming videos on Youtube... is this right?

2016-03-08 12:10:52 pm

Seeing as these last few updates have been so Nintendo-heavy, I feel it's only right to point out that Nintendo's current policy of monetizing YT videos that by no stretch of the imagination are violating the principle of Fair Use, and do not even particularly focus on their games, is some utter bollocks that they deserve all kinds of shit to be slung back their way. It's ugly, greedy AAA capitalism, not the most egregious example thereof, but an example thereof nevertheless. If you don't know Jim Sterling, here's what sparked this bout of indignation for me. The reason I want to bring this up is because it affects everyone here. Everyone who likes to post their runs on YouTube or elsewhere could potentially be run over by AAA companies like Nintendo (and obviously anyone deciding to abuse the current system) putting their quarterly profits ahead of everything else. If you've lived under the illusion it doesn't matter whose games you're buying, it's about time to remove the blinkers and consider your options a bit more widely. Anyway I shouldn't go on about this since Jim really does deserve the thanks (and views) for keeping me up do date on these things. I hope you'll find him as reasonable - and affable - as I do.

Now this next bit would have fit under "SDA discussion" better but I decided against severing it off like that. So, for the record, a number of SDA staffers thought the above was too opinionated for the front page while I thought it was appropriate because it's relevant to the site and all gamers who like to share their playing. What do you think? What would your reaction have been (presumably the same as it is now lol)? And of course whatever else this sparks for you.

Thread title:

Seeing as these last few updates have been so Nintendo-heavy, I feel it's only right to point out that Nintendo's current policy of monetizing YT videos that by no stretch of the imagination are violating the principle of Fair Use, and do not even particularly focus on their games, is some utter bollocks that they deserve all kinds of shit to be slung back their way. It's ugly, greedy AAA capitalism, not the most egregious example thereof, but an example thereof nevertheless. If you don't know Jim Sterling, [url=https://youtu.be/d9mTOq6mP2I]here's[/url] what sparked this bout of indignation for me. The reason I want to bring this up is because it affects everyone here. Everyone who likes to post their runs on YouTube or elsewhere could potentially be run over by AAA companies like Nintendo (and obviously anyone deciding to abuse the current system) putting their quarterly profits ahead of everything else. If you've lived under the illusion it doesn't matter whose games you're buying, it's about time to remove the blinkers and consider your options a bit more widely. Anyway I shouldn't go on about this since Jim really does deserve the thanks (and views) for keeping me up do date on these things. I hope you'll find him as reasonable - and affable - as I do.

Now this next bit would have fit under "SDA discussion" better but I decided against severing it off like that. So, for the record, a number of SDA staffers thought the above was too opinionated for the front page while I thought it was appropriate because it's relevant to the site and all gamers who like to share their playing. What do you think? What would your reaction have been (presumably the same as it is now lol)? And of course whatever else this sparks for you.

presjpolk

2016-03-08 01:32:06 pm

HELLO!

Nintendo isn't issuing takedown requests for the videos. They're just running ads on them. Perfectly compatible with fair use.

dunnius

2016-03-08 03:27:38 pm

Intruding N313 and F014

Not compatible if they are making money off of other's derivative work. The bigger problem is that Google allows this to happen, as well as unfair takedowns. These are things that we need to demand Google to change their policy.

presjpolk

2016-03-09 08:34:07 am

HELLO!

"Not compatible if they are making money off of other's derivative work. "

I haven't seen that provision in my research of fair use law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

Fair use is an exemption to needing a license. It doesn't prohibit the copyright holder from profiting off of your use of Google's server to host your video.

dunnius

2016-03-09 07:40:07 pm

Intruding N313 and F014

It's a major reason why I always use adblocking software. That and retarded advertisements.

LotBlind

2016-03-13 01:42:37 pm

I think you can tell how I feel based on my initial post.

presjpolk: the law isn't morality? Smiley

dunnius: But doesn't ad-block mean you don't return the content creators anything in case it's them themselves having monetized it?

Otherwise I'm not really going to return to this topic here seeing as, as mentioned, I'd end up rehashing what Jim says in his show.

Zergreenone

Edit history:

Zergreenone: 2016-03-13 03:57:54 pm

Zergreenone: 2016-03-13 03:57:26 pm

Zergreenone: 2016-03-13 03:56:34 pm

Zergreenone: 2016-03-13 03:54:33 pm

Zergreenone: 2016-03-13 03:54:12 pm

Zergreenone: 2016-03-13 03:53:05 pm

2016-03-13 03:35:58 pm

I do think that it is a bit too opinionated for putting it on the SDA front page. And not entirely relevant. How many speedrunners make their money off youtube videos?

So basically, companies shouldn't be allowed to monetize any video that was created by a youtuber, as it would be copyright infringement. What's happening is that they are sort of using the defense that the reason they are allowed to monetize these videos is because the video-makers are infringing on the company's copyright, which is not necessarily true. If I have understood what is happening correctly, then yes, companies are probably doing something illegal.

Youtube itself probably isn't even protected from this sort of copyright infringement, as they are doing nothing transformative to the piece. And so they should not be able to run ads on the videos without the copyright owner's permission, but they would be able to put ads on youtube itself.

But it probably wouldn't be very hard for YouTube to get the youtuber's permission to run ads on their videos, as YouTube is under no obligation to put their videos on the site. In fact, it's probably on some terms of use thing the youtuber agreed to somewhere.

But the worst that could happen to a speedrunner is that a few ads are placed on their videos. And indeed, they could tell people to use adblock.

I do think that it is a bit too opinionated for putting it on the SDA front page. And not entirely relevant. How many speedrunners make their money off youtube videos?

So basically, companies shouldn't be allowed to monetize any video that was created by a youtuber, as it would be copyright infringement. What's happening is that they are sort of using the defense that the reason they are allowed to monetize these videos is because the video-makers are infringing on the company's copyright, which is not necessarily true. If I have understood what is happening correctly, then yes, companies are probably doing something illegal.

Youtube itself probably isn't even protected from this sort of copyright infringement, as they are doing nothing transformative to the piece. And so they should not be able to run ads on the videos without the copyright owner's permission, but they would be able to put ads on youtube itself.

But it probably wouldn't be very hard for YouTube to get the youtuber's permission to run ads on their videos, as YouTube is under no obligation to put their videos on the site. In fact, it's probably on some terms of use thing the youtuber agreed to somewhere.

But the worst that could happen to a speedrunner is that a few ads are placed on their videos. And indeed, they could tell people to use adblock.

LotBlind

2016-03-15 02:37:19 pm

"Not entirely relevant. How many speedrunners make their money off youtube videos?"

Thanks for commenting on that! I want to think we can have some kind of solidarity as part of a greater community here. Secondly, as you mentioned, ads on speedruns could become a reality.

It's the principle I'm interested in here. And lending this some publicity. The big picture is seeing stuff like this by AAA developers week after week on Jim's show, not just Nintendo ofc, I meant more like ALSO Nintendo, because I just don't understand fan loyalty as a concept. To me that's shorthand for "can't be bothered to think about it". Well, long-hand for it. There has to be reinforcement for any conditioning to happen, so I'm quick to react to (and I believe it's correct to do this) any negative behavior, otherwise it goes unchecked.

I'm against the idea of adblock myself because I see nothing wrong with legitimate ad revenue. I don't think YT ad counts are country-specific like TV ad counts can be are they? As for if they're "retarded" as dunnius says, that is country-specific.

"Not entirely relevant. How many speedrunners make their money off youtube videos?"

Thanks for commenting on that! I want to think we can have some kind of solidarity as part of a greater community here. Secondly, as you mentioned, ads on speedruns could become a reality.

It's the principle I'm interested in here. And lending this some publicity. The big picture is seeing stuff like this by AAA developers week after week on Jim's show, not just Nintendo ofc, I meant more like ALSO Nintendo, because I just don't understand fan loyalty as a concept. To me that's shorthand for "can't be bothered to think about it". Well, long-hand for it. There has to be reinforcement for any conditioning to happen, so I'm quick to react to (and I believe it's correct to do this) any negative behavior, otherwise it goes unchecked.

I'm against the idea of adblock myself because I see nothing wrong with legitimate ad revenue. I don't think YT ad counts are country-specific like TV ad counts can be are they? As for if they're "retarded" as dunnius says, that is country-specific.

philosoraptor42

2016-03-16 08:23:14 am

Dapper as fuck.

The problem though is that Nintendo isn't doing anything wrong by monetizing speedruns or let's plays. Fair use doesn't give someone carte blanche to do whatever they want with copyrighted material. People like Jim and Doug Walker are more going after people issuing bogus takedowns on things that ARE within fair use and not having any repercussions for doing so. Dreamworks is one that has been on Doug Walker as of late, and reviews ARE covered under fair use (criticism is one of the fair use categories).

If Nintendo IS going after videos that fall under fair use then I agree that they should be held accountable.

Zergreenone

Edit history:

Zergreenone: 2016-03-17 05:29:38 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-17 05:29:15 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-17 05:27:48 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-17 05:16:38 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-17 05:16:22 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-17 05:15:21 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-17 05:11:43 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-17 04:48:34 am

2016-03-17 04:46:58 am

I don't see what motivation a company would have to takedown a video or channel. I mean, just why?

I'm not sure whether or not speedruns or let's plays even lie within fair use. If they DO lie within fair use, then companies should not be able to legally monetize them, as it breaks the copyright of the speedrun/let's play owner. If they DO NOT lie within fair use, then it is perfectly OK for companies to take them down or monetize them or do whatever they want with it, as it is their material.

Take DOTA. Can blizzard monetize DOTA content? No, because it lies within fair use.

So I think that big companies would be doing something wrong by monetizing speedruns or let's plays if they lie within fair use, as they would be piggybacking on someone else's work.

But let's plays and speedruns may not lie within fair use.

And again, I don't understand what motivation big companies would have to takedown videos that essentially promote their content. Unless it is some game like undertale or something and they don't want people to essentially pirate the game. Or something that

I mean, obviously if people are issuing bogus takedowns and youtube is allowing them to do so, that is a problem.

_____

So, I guess maybe the problem is that youtube's automated copyright-detection and copyright-claiming system is bad.

I don't see what motivation a company would have to takedown a video or channel. I mean, just why?

I'm not sure whether or not speedruns or let's plays even lie within fair use. If they DO lie within fair use, then companies should not be able to legally monetize them, as it breaks the copyright of the speedrun/let's play owner. If they DO NOT lie within fair use, then it is perfectly OK for companies to take them down or monetize them or do whatever they want with it, as it is their material.

Take DOTA. Can blizzard monetize DOTA content? No, because it lies within fair use.

So I think that big companies would be doing something wrong by monetizing speedruns or let's plays if they lie within fair use, as they would be piggybacking on someone else's work.

But let's plays and speedruns may not lie within fair use.

And again, I don't understand what motivation big companies would have to takedown videos that essentially promote their content. Unless it is some game like undertale or something and they don't want people to essentially pirate the game. Or something that

I mean, obviously if people are issuing bogus takedowns and youtube is allowing them to do so, that is a problem.

_____

So, I guess maybe the problem is that youtube's automated copyright-detection and copyright-claiming system is bad.

philosoraptor42

Edit history:

philosoraptor42: 2016-03-17 07:49:32 am

2016-03-17 07:49:08 am

Dapper as fuck.

Quote from Zergreenone:

I'm not sure whether or not speedruns or let's plays even lie within fair use.

They don't. The link pres posted mentions what is fair use. "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research"
LP's and speedruns don't really fall under any of that.

Quote from Zergreenone:

So, I guess maybe the problem is that youtube's automated copyright-detection and copyright-claiming system is bad.

This is the meat and potatoes of what guys like Doug Walker are upset about. And that all the punishment happens to the content creators. If someone files a false claim that gets fought and overturned, nothing happens to the person that filed the claim at all. Nothing. This does nothing to discourage people from filing claims for no reason just to see what sticks.

Zergreenone

Edit history:

Zergreenone: 2016-03-18 01:10:50 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-18 01:10:32 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-18 01:07:02 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-18 01:06:34 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-18 01:04:34 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-18 01:03:50 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-18 01:03:27 am

Zergreenone: 2016-03-18 01:01:25 am

2016-03-18 01:00:57 am

The key words in that quote are "such as". Although I don't think speedruns and let's plays really lie within fair use anyway. Although I guess maybe they do, as they are everywhere on youtube, and aren't being taken down most of the time.

And, sort of tangential but similar, even if something does criticize, comment, news-report, etc, doesn't necessarily mean it lies within fair use, but it does indicate a higher likelihood of it being considered fair use.

And I just noticed, why is that U.S. Code § 107, it doesn't apply to other countries? I guess there is a whole issue based on countries and the internet, as the internet is international.

philosoraptor42

2016-03-18 01:55:11 pm

Dapper as fuck.

Well I would assume most LP/Speedruns don't get takedown notices because no one generally monetizes them. I've gotten copyright notices that Nintendo was going to monetize a couple of my videos but I never have outright tried to monetize any of my YT uploads. I think also the backlash from issuing takedown notices on that stuff isn't worth the negative press they'd be likely to get in most instances, so companies are content to just issue the monetization claim and go from there, as it doesn't really negatively affect the uploader like a takedown does.

Zergreenone

2016-03-18 04:42:30 pm

I am pretty sure there are LPers who make their money off youtube. Although really I don't know for sure. Speedruns probably don't get monetized as much.

LotBlind

2016-03-19 12:36:19 pm

I think Jim's point (and by extension mine) was more the content IDed video was monetized by Nintendo even though the Nintendo-relevant bit was exceedingly small. A number of other parties would have had preference when it came to it. As you say the system is to blame for allowing it so freely. But it's still also a bit dubious of Nintendo itself that it really goes for this petty stuff. As you say Nintendo isn't the worst offender. It's just that the money simply does not rightfully belong to Nintendo in such cases, and Jim (and others) himself should IMO be allowed to reserve the rights to monetization because everything he does is fair use. I wouldn't be on Nintendo if they had people actually making judgment calls about it but it's done by automation as we know.

It's a bigger issue with those for whom the monetization of videos is important. As we know, it's the first few days when videos get the heavy traffic and a claim then and there can be highly destructive. I am under no illusion some of Nintendo's claims don't fall exactly in this category, what's to prevent it?

And again, I'm pointing at Nintendo because it's the best of the worst probably. I just want us not to dance around the question of whether or not it's a big corporation that behaves like a big corporation is likely to.

Zergreenone: Many times the incentive to block a video completely is for devs to silence the criticism they're being subjected to. This is generally only small squalid indie developers... and the likes of Konami. But yes that's not what this is about.

I think Jim's point (and by extension mine) was more the content IDed video was monetized by Nintendo even though the Nintendo-relevant bit was exceedingly small. A number of other parties would have had preference when it came to it. As you say the system is to blame for allowing it so freely. But it's still also a bit dubious of Nintendo itself that it really goes for this petty stuff. As you say Nintendo isn't the worst offender. It's just that the money simply does not rightfully belong to Nintendo in such cases, and Jim (and others) himself should IMO be allowed to reserve the rights to monetization because everything he does is fair use. I wouldn't be on Nintendo if they had people actually making judgment calls about it but it's done by automation as we know.

It's a bigger issue with those for whom the monetization of videos is important. As we know, it's the first few days when videos get the heavy traffic and a claim then and there can be highly destructive. I am under no illusion some of Nintendo's claims don't fall exactly in this category, what's to prevent it?

And again, I'm pointing at Nintendo because it's the best of the worst probably. I just want us not to dance around the question of whether or not it's a big corporation that behaves like a big corporation is likely to.

Zergreenone: Many times the incentive to block a video completely is for devs to silence the criticism they're being subjected to. This is generally only small squalid indie developers... and the likes of Konami. But yes that's not what this is about.

LotBlind

2016-04-28 01:31:44 pm

Aaaand, if you were interested in this in the slightest, I think you'll find this amusing too.

philosoraptor42

2016-04-28 01:39:53 pm

Dapper as fuck.

HAHAH Fuck Konami News.

gammadragon

2016-05-05 02:01:55 am

Might be magic...

Quote from LotBlind:

Aaaand, if you were interested in this in the slightest, I think you'll find this amusing too.

That is brilliant... about time youtube fixed this properly to make it fairer for small content producers. I hope everyone starts doing this to really ram things home.