Yes. And if they are willing to pay you nothing is wrong with it.
Well, I am not willing to pay someone (in money or time watching ads) so that I can watch them play games and talk while they do so. Not on Youtube.
If Google needed the money to keep the site going, that's one thing, but to give money to NintendoCapriSun or Chocobotamer for uploading stuff to Youtube is silly.
Being a professional Youtube LPer is no different then singing a song you didn't write
You are the person who makes it entertaining and many LPers spend all day recording and editing videos
The amount of work some of them put in means a lot of them to do what they love which is making videos means they have to quit their job and often get less than minimum wage as they spend all their time making videos and then lose 1/2 their income to adblock.
You could argue any job where you don't have a regular income is a hobby but Youtubers But if youtubers like NerdCubed spend hours making and recording game play videos finding new ways to experience the game they should be paid for their work...
That's like if I invited people over to my house to watch me play a video game, and I charged by the head for it because people think I'm funny.
How about if I got into building and flying remote controlled airplanes, and charged people for coming to watch me fly them? (by myself, not at an official event that actually cost someone money to organize.)
It's a hobby, not a job. People play games because they are fun, and they make LP's because they enjoy it.
In fact, I don't think I'd ever pay money just to watch a Rifftrax, either.
But it isn't like that either. It is just simple ad that barely wastes your time. If you don't think that the youtubers deserve that 30 seconds, then you clearly don't like their content and shouldn't be watching it. It's a dick move to take someone's product(the video) but then not pay for it because you don't like that they are making money off of it. I'd be furious if this was my job(for whatever reason) and people like you used adblock just because they didn't like that this was my job.
But it isn't like that either. It is just simple ad that barely wastes your time. If you don't think that the youtubers deserve that 30 seconds, then you clearly don't like their content and shouldn't be watching it. It's a dick move to take someone's product(the video) but then not pay for it because you don't like that they are making money off of it. I'd be furious if this was my job(for whatever reason) and people like you used adblock just because they didn't like that this was my job.
You have a point there but it is still not a product because it would go against the definition itself. Thing is. If he does not actually do purchases based on advertisement he/she sees, then he/she wastes advertisers money by not buying everything they show you and pay to show for you. Unless you can afford to buy everything you see as an advertisement on Youtube, you are wasting advertisers money period and yet that is not morally wrong.
You have a point there but it is still not a product because it would go against the definition itself. Thing is. If he does not actually do purchases based on advertisement he/she sees, then he/she wastes advertisers money by not buying everything they show you and pay to show for you. Unless you can afford to buy everything you see as an advertisement on Youtube, you are wasting advertisers money period and yet that is not morally wrong.
It is the advertisers choice to spend money advertising whilst it is not the Youtuber's choice whether or not someone chooses to use Adblock...
Again, I think this is much nicer than Nintendo turning into Crown Prince Dickface and claiming copyright and having LP's taken down, which they would technically be within their rights to do so.
Again, I think this is much nicer than Nintendo turning into Crown Prince Dickface and claiming copyright and having LP's taken down, which they would technically be within their rights to do so.
Just because they could have done something worse, doesn't mean they get off the hook.
Just because they could have done something worse, doesn't mean they get off the hook.
If you say so. I happen to agree with the idea that LP's should be a hobby, not a source of income. This isn't even like movie or game reviews like the Nostalgia Critic or the Angry Video Game Nerd. This is strictly gameplay with someone talking over it. Not sketch comedy that's written.
If you say so. I happen to agree with the idea that LP's should be a hobby, not a source of income. This isn't even like movie or game reviews like the Nostalgia Critic or the Angry Video Game Nerd. This is strictly gameplay with someone talking over it. Not sketch comedy that's written.
Basically that. The thing is, sure, it requires skills to be able to give an engaging LP, and it somewhat requires effort in that one has to actually play the game, but it's nowhere near a review, where the words are carefully picked out and written down beforehand. LPs always run on a hit-and-miss basis. It's why LP highlights exist, to get the comedy out of the shit.
I think the barrier needs to get so high that those who want ad payments on their LPs can enforce them even when you have ad blocker. It shouldn't be up to people to choose whether a person has a right to making money or not. Switch over from flash to HTML5 encoding and it will be asker for people to enforce these pay walls.
If you say so. I happen to agree with the idea that LP's should be a hobby, not a source of income. This isn't even like movie or game reviews like the Nostalgia Critic or the Angry Video Game Nerd. This is strictly gameplay with someone talking over it. Not sketch comedy that's written.
Thing is though is that Nintendo is just attacking gameplay, not let's plays. Reviews are getting hit just the same. A person who's reviews I love to watch, KNIGHTWING01, has to change the entire way he does reviews because Nintendo targeted his videos as well.
No matter your opinion on LPs many people rely on the Ad revenue whether they are Lpers reviewers, first impressioners all this accomplishes is realistically no Youtuber can afford to play Nintendo games any more which is a shame both for Nintendo as they lose free advertising and for viewers and Youtubers
Fuck. The forum ate a nice post I wrote up including several examples for variing quality of LPs.
Let's keep it short then. Chuggaconroy plays Zelda:Links awakening.
Great LP with a lot of extras added to the gameplay & good quality.
This LPer only plays games he knows. And he puts a ton of effort into every video. And I think he should be allowed to get payed for that.
Man I had some horrible examples of bad LPs in that old post.
It occurs to me that 10 years ago Nintendo could have fixed a bug like this and there probably wouldn't be that much todo about it, yet now everyone is up in arms about it (or at the very least the media is making it appear so.)
You know what, last post here and then I'll back out, because seriously, I do not want to have any part of this discussion anymore.
The feeling I get here is that people don't rationalize. Now perhaps it's because I'm 27 already and have Autism Spectrum Disorder which was only discovered when I was 27 forcing me to actually try and live like a "normal" person, but here's the thing. A lot of decisions can be rationalized. Fuck, even the recent fuck-up by Microsoft can be rationalized. Now I'm not saying I will purchase the Xbox One, simply because limited budget and their focus on a different demography, and the fact that their used games policy and shit doesn't help all that much, but still.
It's like something I've seen posted on Facebook, something about the Obama administration criminalizing journalism or something because confidential government secrets had been leaked to the public. The way I saw that issue was that they wanted to protect the country, which is why shit like WikiLeaks can be pretty fucking dangerous. Seriously, I don't want this to happen, but I'm waiting for the day that WikiLeaks or something similar will be used for something malicious. People took that article as an attack against our freedom of speech, the problem here is that even that should have its boundaries.
I mean, look at democracy. It basically is a system where the people decide the fate of the country, to make the country as free as possible, but even that needs to be governed. We can't all walk around naked, not only is it not pleasant for people to see naked people everywhere, it also imposes various forms of danger, like health issues. We have rules for a reason, and this also means that we can't just put everything we find on the Internet.
And it isn't all black-white. I mean, sure, we need to bring out corruption to light, so that it won't happen frequently, but on the other hand, how far can our freedom of speech reach?
The same is going on with other, less politically laden issues. Lately Nintendo has been getting a lot of flak for stuff like not being next gen or the lack of games, and now the YouTube issue. Here's the thing though. I have to agree that the console isn't technically next gen, but then again, what defines next gen? The problem here lies in the fact that we see power as next gen, however, next gen implies it brings something new to the table, something that could potentially be game-changing. Kinect, for example, brought next gen, we didn't really need a new console for that. The Wii remote brought us next gen. And, here's the thing, the Wii U itself isn't next gen, however, the controller is. Sure, right now it's just a gimmick, but who knows how it could potentially change the way we play? The Wii remote already did that, it brought us stuff like the PS Move and Kinect.
How about games? Well, while part of it might be because of Nintendo itself, it doesn't really help that some publishers, like EA or Activision, have backed out or delayed games entirely. And no, Nintendo should not have released certain games sooner. Nintendo has always tried to bring out quality games, and sure, it didn't happen always, but it sure as hell happened most of the time. One of the most loved Nintendo games, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, was delayed two years before it finally came out. It was one of the games they actually had to delay in order to bring out the quality it deserved. Now perhaps Nintendo shouldn't have released the Wii U this soon, but then again, if they released it a year later, they would have to directly compete against the PS4 and Xbox One.
And here's the thing about the YouTube ordeal. Copyrights and trademarks can easily be lost. Quite a few films lost their copyrights because they weren't secured properly, and the same can happen with games and music. The main problem here is though that we don't know the legal mumbo jumbo, or at least most of us don't. We are only seeing a big corporation acting against a small party. We don't know the specifics. Perhaps it's just a side-effect of the deal with YouTube, perhaps it's purely to cover their ass considering copyright laws. And yes, perhaps we should look into the laws more, see if it shouldn't be revised. The thing is that we know nothing, we only think we know something.
Well Said, GaryCXJK. You've summed up my thoughts entirely. I've never really cared about "Next gen". Just so long as great games keep on coming, I'm happy. Games that still manage to feel new, despite, on a technical level, being basically the same as they always have been. That's what Next Gen is,and that's what Nintendo does best.
As for Nintendo and the "gay bug", I can understand why they've taken it down. Afterall, it was supposedly causing other bugs. Sure they could have introduced it properly via a patch (extending it to female couples too) to avoid the bad press over here. However, attitudes in Japan towards homosexuals are, regrettably, colder than they are in the west, so they'd be in a lot more trouble if they didn't take it down, I think. It doesn't really bother me that some app I've never even heard of doesn't allow it. It's not really different from the fact that almost every Nintendo franchise forces you to play as a male lead, for instance.
And here's the thing about the YouTube ordeal. Copyrights and trademarks can easily be lost. Quite a few films lost their copyrights because they weren't secured properly, and the same can happen with games and music.
Trademarks definitely can be lost if a company doesn't protect them (this has happened before, most famously with the elevator), so vigorously going after trademark infringement makes sense (and is probably Nintendo's main reason for seeking compensation for YouTube videos).
Copyright can't be lost because organizations or individuals didn't vigorously protect their copyright though, at least not anymore. Films and songs lost their copyright because the copyright laws were very different in all countries before the 1970's. You used to have to re-register a copyright every decade or so, or else you'd lose it, and it would fall into the public domain. Now, in pretty much all countries (Japan included, which Nintendo's copyright would fall under, and would be followed by all nations that signed the Berne Convention agreement), an individual or organization only has to copyright things once, and then the copyright exists for a stated time, and falls into the public domain afterward (in Japan it's 50 years after publication for an organization, like Nintendo, or 50 years after death for an individual).
Aww, I wanted to see this go to court. Not because it's worthy of going to court, but because someone would probably have to say "Nintendo can't do this to me. I have every right to profit off of their copyrighted material".
Okay, cross-posting it from tvtropes.org, written that one while very tired and shit. Still tired due to lack of sleep and RPG Maker. Not lack of RPG Maker, I had enough RPG Maker for the next few days.
Okay, I think I've got this now.
The reason Nintendo did this ad revenue thing isn't just because they're corporate greedbags or that they just wanted to protect their I Ps. Well, it is the latter, but here's where it gets more substantial.
Valve themselves had to specifically put in their policy that people could earn ad revenue from Source Filmmaker made films and even commercialize on them if it used all original assets. People were still allowed to earn ad revenue from content created with Valve assets, but they could not actually sell said videos.
A similar thing happened with Nintendo, they protected their I Ps this way. If they didn't, to what extend could people earn from their assets? I mean, if people used their characters in a fan film and proceed to actually sell that film, even though it doesn't contain any actual assets from any of their games, would that still be illegal? (Yes, yes it would.)
So, in this case, even the "but Let's Plays aren't like sharing films, we still do our own shit" argument becomes void because of the aforementioned. If Nintendo would just let the Let's Plays run loose, to what extent could people earn money from not just Let's Plays, but other types of Internet videos using the IPs?
Comments
If Google needed the money to keep the site going, that's one thing, but to give money to NintendoCapriSun or Chocobotamer for uploading stuff to Youtube is silly.
You are the person who makes it entertaining and many LPers spend all day recording and editing videos
The amount of work some of them put in means a lot of them to do what they love which is making videos means they have to quit their job and often get less than minimum wage as they spend all their time making videos and then lose 1/2 their income to adblock.
You could argue any job where you don't have a regular income is a hobby but Youtubers But if youtubers like NerdCubed spend hours making and recording game play videos finding new ways to experience the game they should be paid for their work...
But it isn't like that either. It is just simple ad that barely wastes your time. If you don't think that the youtubers deserve that 30 seconds, then you clearly don't like their content and shouldn't be watching it. It's a dick move to take someone's product(the video) but then not pay for it because you don't like that they are making money off of it. I'd be furious if this was my job(for whatever reason) and people like you used adblock just because they didn't like that this was my job.
You have a point there but it is still not a product because it would go against the definition itself. Thing is. If he does not actually do purchases based on advertisement he/she sees, then he/she wastes advertisers money by not buying everything they show you and pay to show for you. Unless you can afford to buy everything you see as an advertisement on Youtube, you are wasting advertisers money period and yet that is not morally wrong.
Just because they could have done something worse, doesn't mean they get off the hook.
If you say so. I happen to agree with the idea that LP's should be a hobby, not a source of income. This isn't even like movie or game reviews like the Nostalgia Critic or the Angry Video Game Nerd. This is strictly gameplay with someone talking over it. Not sketch comedy that's written.
Basically that. The thing is, sure, it requires skills to be able to give an engaging LP, and it somewhat requires effort in that one has to actually play the game, but it's nowhere near a review, where the words are carefully picked out and written down beforehand. LPs always run on a hit-and-miss basis. It's why LP highlights exist, to get the comedy out of the shit.
Thing is though is that Nintendo is just attacking gameplay, not let's plays. Reviews are getting hit just the same. A person who's reviews I love to watch, KNIGHTWING01, has to change the entire way he does reviews because Nintendo targeted his videos as well.
Let's keep it short then.
Chuggaconroy plays Zelda:Links awakening.
Great LP with a lot of extras added to the gameplay & good quality.
This LPer only plays games he knows. And he puts a ton of effort into every video. And I think he should be allowed to get payed for that.
Man I had some horrible examples of bad LPs in that old post.
I recommend Lazarus: Form Recovery.
The fact that they refer to it as a "bug" is what really gets me...
In their defence, however the treatment of gays in Japan is nothing like that of the United States or some other countries:
http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/crackedbat/a-quick-thought-on-nintendo-ruthlessly-separating-gay-couples-in-fc-new-life-253661.phtml
It should have been a feature not a bug...
When you sing a song you didn't write, you have to pay the original rights holder.
The feeling I get here is that people don't rationalize. Now perhaps it's because I'm 27 already and have Autism Spectrum Disorder which was only discovered when I was 27 forcing me to actually try and live like a "normal" person, but here's the thing. A lot of decisions can be rationalized. Fuck, even the recent fuck-up by Microsoft can be rationalized. Now I'm not saying I will purchase the Xbox One, simply because limited budget and their focus on a different demography, and the fact that their used games policy and shit doesn't help all that much, but still.
It's like something I've seen posted on Facebook, something about the Obama administration criminalizing journalism or something because confidential government secrets had been leaked to the public. The way I saw that issue was that they wanted to protect the country, which is why shit like WikiLeaks can be pretty fucking dangerous. Seriously, I don't want this to happen, but I'm waiting for the day that WikiLeaks or something similar will be used for something malicious. People took that article as an attack against our freedom of speech, the problem here is that even that should have its boundaries.
I mean, look at democracy. It basically is a system where the people decide the fate of the country, to make the country as free as possible, but even that needs to be governed. We can't all walk around naked, not only is it not pleasant for people to see naked people everywhere, it also imposes various forms of danger, like health issues. We have rules for a reason, and this also means that we can't just put everything we find on the Internet.
And it isn't all black-white. I mean, sure, we need to bring out corruption to light, so that it won't happen frequently, but on the other hand, how far can our freedom of speech reach?
The same is going on with other, less politically laden issues. Lately Nintendo has been getting a lot of flak for stuff like not being next gen or the lack of games, and now the YouTube issue. Here's the thing though. I have to agree that the console isn't technically next gen, but then again, what defines next gen? The problem here lies in the fact that we see power as next gen, however, next gen implies it brings something new to the table, something that could potentially be game-changing. Kinect, for example, brought next gen, we didn't really need a new console for that. The Wii remote brought us next gen. And, here's the thing, the Wii U itself isn't next gen, however, the controller is. Sure, right now it's just a gimmick, but who knows how it could potentially change the way we play? The Wii remote already did that, it brought us stuff like the PS Move and Kinect.
How about games? Well, while part of it might be because of Nintendo itself, it doesn't really help that some publishers, like EA or Activision, have backed out or delayed games entirely. And no, Nintendo should not have released certain games sooner. Nintendo has always tried to bring out quality games, and sure, it didn't happen always, but it sure as hell happened most of the time. One of the most loved Nintendo games, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, was delayed two years before it finally came out. It was one of the games they actually had to delay in order to bring out the quality it deserved. Now perhaps Nintendo shouldn't have released the Wii U this soon, but then again, if they released it a year later, they would have to directly compete against the PS4 and Xbox One.
And here's the thing about the YouTube ordeal. Copyrights and trademarks can easily be lost. Quite a few films lost their copyrights because they weren't secured properly, and the same can happen with games and music. The main problem here is though that we don't know the legal mumbo jumbo, or at least most of us don't. We are only seeing a big corporation acting against a small party. We don't know the specifics. Perhaps it's just a side-effect of the deal with YouTube, perhaps it's purely to cover their ass considering copyright laws. And yes, perhaps we should look into the laws more, see if it shouldn't be revised. The thing is that we know nothing, we only think we know something.
So here's my last few cents.
As for Nintendo and the "gay bug", I can understand why they've taken it down. Afterall, it was supposedly causing other bugs. Sure they could have introduced it properly via a patch (extending it to female couples too) to avoid the bad press over here. However, attitudes in Japan towards homosexuals are, regrettably, colder than they are in the west, so they'd be in a lot more trouble if they didn't take it down, I think. It doesn't really bother me that some app I've never even heard of doesn't allow it. It's not really different from the fact that almost every Nintendo franchise forces you to play as a male lead, for instance.
Copyright can't be lost because organizations or individuals didn't vigorously protect their copyright though, at least not anymore. Films and songs lost their copyright because the copyright laws were very different in all countries before the 1970's. You used to have to re-register a copyright every decade or so, or else you'd lose it, and it would fall into the public domain. Now, in pretty much all countries (Japan included, which Nintendo's copyright would fall under, and would be followed by all nations that signed the Berne Convention agreement), an individual or organization only has to copyright things once, and then the copyright exists for a stated time, and falls into the public domain afterward (in Japan it's 50 years after publication for an organization, like Nintendo, or 50 years after death for an individual).
Aww, I wanted to see this go to court. Not because it's worthy of going to court, but because someone would probably have to say "Nintendo can't do this to me. I have every right to profit off of their copyrighted material".
Okay, I think I've got this now.
The reason Nintendo did this ad revenue thing isn't just because they're corporate greedbags or that they just wanted to protect their I Ps. Well, it is the latter, but here's where it gets more substantial.
Valve themselves had to specifically put in their policy that people could earn ad revenue from Source Filmmaker made films and even commercialize on them if it used all original assets. People were still allowed to earn ad revenue from content created with Valve assets, but they could not actually sell said videos.
A similar thing happened with Nintendo, they protected their I Ps this way. If they didn't, to what extend could people earn from their assets? I mean, if people used their characters in a fan film and proceed to actually sell that film, even though it doesn't contain any actual assets from any of their games, would that still be illegal? (Yes, yes it would.)
So, in this case, even the "but Let's Plays aren't like sharing films, we still do our own shit" argument becomes void because of the aforementioned. If Nintendo would just let the Let's Plays run loose, to what extent could people earn money from not just Let's Plays, but other types of Internet videos using the IPs?
Nitnendo banned Smash Bros Melee from being streamed at EVO
EDIT: Nintendo backtracked on that statement thank-god. Wonder what made them cancel that in the first place.