Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
I have stopped being an "ist" (ie. nintendist) a very very long time ago. Nintendo is a company and it should be treated that way. It's not a cult or religion. It sells products and it protects its products. A lot of the feeling towards this comes from people feeling betrayed because they give love to nintendo. Don't. Give money when they sell a product you like.
Besides, we have since the begginning of TASing questioned the legality of it. Nintendo's only response I recall was "it's ok to post videos of people playing nintendo games". Now they have realized that they don't like very much the current practical connection of TASing and rom hacking to piracy (not all involve that, but come on guys).
It's not like this is the end of TASing, it's just nintendo property games on mainstream video websites.
Not again.. I feel like posting a rant.
And so I ask myself: Would it really be such a loss if Nintendo wen't out of business? It's pretty obvious that they will never change. They're still the best game publisher, no one even comes close in giving you so much quality software, but they are still going downhill. How is that even possible with so many ridiculously marketable franchises? If it would actually happen that Nintendo wen't out of business, other companies would pay EVERY price to get just one of them. So it would be very likely, that we would still see all the games we want, maybe even better than now.
Oh and of course, copyright law is broken and so on, everyone knows it, nothing ever changes..
You're ignoring the fact that just about every software company in Japan is struggling, and I can accept the gaming industry in general is in a downturn for a number of reasons. There is next to no chance of Sony releasing another console and a 50/50 chance of Microsoft doing so. Many of the companies in Japan are big trouble due to the younger generations disapproval of the culture imposed on them by companies like Sony and Konami. On top of that there is a culture where people are given executive positions based on seniority and not on merit.
The one thing that I don't understand is why there hasn't been a class action lawsuit against companies that do this to protect the rights of content creators. It's been an issue for years and everybody is complaining about it, but nobody is actually doing a dang thing against it.
I live in the wrong country so I can't so much about it except help funding a potential movement, but if I lived in the USA I would have definitely consulted a lawyer a long time ago about this, even though I'm not directly affected.
Joined: 8/14/2014
Posts: 188
Location: North Kilttown
It's for a number of reasons. For one thing, yes, Nintendo (or any other company) does own their intellectual property. The question up for debate (that isn't specific to gaming and has been argued for decades in the music industry) is [I]how much[/i] do they own it and what rights do the general public have when it comes to exhibition - albeit for critical review or otherwise. This issue also extends to a customer's ownership of a product and how, in this case, making copies for varying reasons falls into that. All of these issues are incredibly complicated in the grand scheme of things and would require an extremely good expensive lawer(s).
This isn't helped by the more insidious factor, which leads me to believe Nintendo is being more evil than stupid, is that they rarely go after any of the big name LPers/gaming sites who are the ones making substantial money out of it. Most of the cases of videos being removed or channels being taken down is against nobodies like you or me who don't have the money to hire the aforementioned lawer, and stand to lose a lot from losing such a case. Besides which, at least in the American copyright laws, there are way too many grey areas and most courts lean will lean towards the company with their shiny, happy legal team. Even if public opinion or even outright human morality disagrees (see: literally anything Disney or WMG has done)
This isn't helped by the more insidious factor, which leads me to believe Nintendo is being more evil than stupid, is that they rarely go after any of the big name LPers/gaming sites who are the ones making substantial money out of it.
Actually Nintendo has demanded let'splayers a big portion of their profit in exchange for them not to DMCA their videos. This was big controversy a while back.
As I have stated several times, fair use protects review and criticism (and possibly things like parody, depending on the jurisdiction), but let's play videos are on that grey area. The rule of thumb even with reviews is that the amount of material used from the work should be small, and a let's play video badly breaches this principle.
Sure, there might have not been any big lawsuit case deciding that question, but it is my understanding that Nintendo does have the legal right to shut down let's play videos of their games, for the simple reason that those videos use too much material from their IP. The only reason why most other companies (with some exceptions) don't DMCA let'splayers is because they don't mind. They would probably have the legal right to do so, but they just don't, because that's their decision. However, that shouldn't be interpreted as let's play videos not infringing copyright.
Nintendo does have the legal right to shut down let's play videos of their games, for the simple reason that those videos use too much material from their IP.
I understand that 1) it's your opinion, and 2) you're probably right that if they wanted, they would win any case they try, but: where exactly did you take the notion that percentage/amount of the used copyrighted work is the main and the only factor such decisions should depend on?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 8/14/2014
Posts: 188
Location: North Kilttown
[Quote=Warp]Sure, there might have not been any big lawsuit case deciding that question, but it is my understanding that Nintendo does have the legal right to shut down let's play videos of their games, for the simple reason that those videos use too much material from their IP. The only reason why most other companies (with some exceptions) don't DMCA let's players is because they don't mind. They would probably have the legal right to do so, but they just don't, because that's their decision. However, that shouldn't be interpreted as let's play videos not infringing copyright.[/quote]
I agree. Don't think I'm arguing otherwise. The issue I'm having is that what constitutes "too much" is too gray to argue for or against effectively. I call it "Andrew Oldham syndrome": say it's okay, even in writing, and then when it suits you, pull it and/or demand money because "too much" doesn't have any actual limits according to the law - at least in America, as others have mentioned it isn't like that everywhere. I have more issue with our copyright laws themselves and how companies will (ab)use them when it suits them rather than make a justification. I actually wouldn't have a problem if Nintendo consistently said "no. LPs, TASes or anything else that shows more than X amount of content is not allowed". Instead, they'll complain and take down videos and in a few months act like it never happened.
In short, yes I'm aware that LPs and even TASes do infringe on copyright. I take issue though with vagueness of their complaints and inconsistent action. Can Nintendo take down whatever they want? Yes. Should they? That's up for debate.
