[FAST6191]

Nintendo seem to being going after youtube types again, this time though it involves something a bit closer to what we do around here

Background
For those just joining us then you have not missed an awful lot.
Background
For many years footage of games was something of a "as long as you do not force us to do something then we will not" for just about everybody and all uses. With the rise of ease of video capture and increased popularity of game footage/art based videos, many of which can earn not inconsiderable revenue for their creators, there have been many companies seeking to clarify their positions on various matters. There are various laws that could govern the usage of footage though the big one would be copyright, though if you look at Microsoft's effort ( http://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules ) there is a definite dash of trademark law in there. One key feature of copyright is exemptions, commonly known as fair use or fair dealing. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ for a more academic discussion, 5 minutes into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbrmaeiZ4RE if you want a more UK focused and light hearted take, the main ones are criticism/review, parody (previously not a thing in Europe but somewhat recently added -- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/02/uk_reforms_enabling_private_copying_parodying_and_general_quotation_of_copyrighted_material_come_into_force/ ), various types of teaching and certain aspects of research. The criticism/review thing would form the backbone of much of it but what gets troubled is the "popular" activity known as let's play where a game gets played and shared basically in full. Many would then argue this is not a review or some other type of fair use as it is presently defined, and may not be a good candidate for a further exemption.
Trademarks have to be enforced (if you allow someone to use your trademark without some kind of agreement then it risks so called genericide -- depending upon where you are aspirin might still be a trademark for acetylsalicylic acid but in many places it is not and anybody can sell said acetylsalicylic acid as aspirin) but copyright kind of does not. If copyright does not then the position of many in the video and game communities would be "it is free advertising, why would you possibly object" which is not an unreasonable line of logic.

Nintendo specifically seems to have opted for the letter of the law approach to copyright and has since been seen to go after many in the video making world, by the way youtube is not especially geared in favour of the so called content creators when it comes to copyright ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xjcuik2t78 being one of many discussing such things).
If you are interested in other companies and their positions/links to their usage guidelines then http://letsplaylist.wikia.com/wiki/%22Let%27s_Play%22-friendly_developers_Wiki is a good jumping off point.

Nintendo's first go around saw them take out many videos, potentially including some non infringing ones, which saw many eyebrows raised.

Round 2 saw Nintendo create a revenue sharing program known as Nintendo Creators Program, one that saw some interesting terms and conditions. http://www.romhacking.net/forum/index.php/topic,16408.0.html
Whether this was due to negative PR from the first or something else is a debate for the ages.

There has been very little said on matters of modding and especially not ROM hacking for many of those, one major exception would be Microsoft's guidelines ( http://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules ) which specifically disallow hacks. Previously we saw reports of various developers claiming videos featuring various ROM hacks and the revenue with them but there was still some debate as to whether it was the hack or just part of a larger movement.

Back to today

Round 3 seems to be happening now and has seen some speedrun stuff happen. http://www.destructoid.com/nintendo-s-cracking-down-on-speedrunning-and-rom-hacking-videos-310152.phtml via http://gbatemp.net/threads/nintendo-closing-rom-hacking-and-speedrunning-channels.397021/#post-5661530

ROM hacking as many around here would know exists in a very grey area of the law but is largely untroubled by legal action -- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/10/tecmo_sues_xbox_game_hackers/ being the only major event I am aware of, and dropped three months later http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/27/tecmo_drops_ninjahacker_suit/
After this we are looking at C&Ds issued to various projects, probably the most notable in recent memory being the Final Fantasy type 0 on the PSP (which is supposed to be ported and translated on some newer consoles), http://www.romhacking.net/forum/index.php?topic=19992.0 and 7th Dragon (possibly, jury is still out on the specifics here).

Thoughts of others reading?

[SunGodPortal]

Hmm. Well, I didn't read click and read all of the links (there were so many) so I'm just going to assume that I know what's going here.

I think videos of Nintendo games is fine, but if someone is making money off of the videos with ads or something, then Nintendo should throw the book at them. If not, then Nintendo should butt out and stop being dicks.

Videos of ROM hacks? Same as above. If someone is making money using Nintendo's IP then they should be crucified. If they're not, why would they care? It wouldn't be in their favor to prosecute. They would only waste money and lose fans/customers.

[Zero Dozer]

Another big fuck off to Internet by Nintendo, and this time it's to Super Mario fans.

Those retards can't realize how much of a fucking shot at their own feet it is. Why must Nintendo act so Hollywoodian, so draconian?

[FAST6191]

Hmm. Well, I didn't read click and read all of the links (there were so many) so I'm just going to assume that I know what's going here.

I think videos of Nintendo games is fine, but if someone is making money off of the videos with ads or something, then Nintendo should throw the book at them. If not, then Nintendo should butt out and stop being dicks.

Videos of ROM hacks? Same as above. If someone is making money using Nintendo's IP then they should be crucified. If they're not, why would they care? It wouldn't be in their favor to prosecute. They would only waste money and lose fans/customers.

Most of that was the background to all this, I just edited the post to clarify that a bit more than I had (between the bold text is the background/history of this all).

On the money thing. If it is not a review or one of the other things copyright law allows you to do then possibly. There is also the perception is reality issue as far as hacks and some of the let's play types -- there are quite a few let's plays where people will play games like idiots, whether by design or because they actually are, and if said videos could lead to some kind of confusion/negative perception among those that might not follow things as closely. On the other hand many have argued it is basically free advertising and as Nintendo itself is not in the business of let's plays (actually I suppose with the revenue share from the creator program I suppose it might be) then what harm might be done financially is back to that perception is reality thing from before.
Others still have argued that for certain games a full play through might be a turn off, or make for a wait until it hits the bargain bucket (or Steam sale in the modern world) mentality; the games most likely to be hit being the relatively linear story games that Nintendo does tend to lean towards.

As a rule I am actually not a fan of let's plays, game streaming or even any of the various types of speedrunning. I much prefer tightly edited content with a purpose and most let's play and streaming types are not naturally funny people. Longplays can be useful if I am determining whether to pick up a game and I do not want to only see the highlights that trailers and shorter form videos might focus upon -- if a game does not handle its downtime well then I might have reservations about picking it up, even if it has great sections in between.

[Seihen]

Others still have argued that for certain games a full play through might be a turn off, or make for a wait until it hits the bargain bucket (or Steam sale in the modern world) mentality; the games most likely to be hit being the relatively linear story games that Nintendo does tend to lean towards.

"The Last of Us" was this right here for me. I really wanted to know what the story was about, and it sounded like a great plot. Alas, the gameplay didn't seem like something I'd be interested in.
So I watched someone else play it on Youtube, and Naughty Dog lost out on a purchase.

So, yeah, I do think this does happen, but not as often as game companies pretend.

[KaioShin]

Another interesting point to that discussion, "what's the "worth" of let's plays as free advertising?": People tend to vastly overestimate this as well. There have been games that were successful, perhaps, solely because of YT and streamers, but they are rare. A lot of the times there is no effect on sales. Here is a recent blog post by an indie dev that raised some controversial discussions: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DanielWest/20150908/253040/Good_isnt_good_enough__releasing_an_indie_game_in_2015.php

His game was streamed by very popular streamer, that video has over 500k views on YT, and that video sold maybe 20 copies of the game.

The streamers and the stream viewers certainly seem to get much more mileage out of them than the devs. Maybe they are right to consider options of restricting or stopping let's plays.

[FAST6191]

"The Last of Us" was this right here for me. I really wanted to know what the story was about, and it sounded like a great plot. Alas, the gameplay didn't seem like something I'd be interested in.
So I watched someone else play it on Youtube, and Naughty Dog lost out on a purchase.

So, yeah, I do think this does happen, but not as often as game companies pretend.

For me though they overplayed their hand quite seriously on the second hand games thing (the law allows it, therefore you do not get to complain that your magic fairy wish of no second hand sales to add to your numbers did not come true) so I am not inclined to take their word for much these days.

On let's plays and increased/decreased sales. I have no numbers beyond a few anecdotal things. I do wish to link up http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/04/14/study-publishers-shouldnt-release-demos-just-trailers/ though at this point.

I am not sure a let's play/longplay would see the "I got mine" mentality arise for me, though I certainly have got things from abridged series, recap books/comics and other summary essays in the past so I can not rule it out in myself and certainly not for others. For games the closest I have got it the last level of a game I was playing was buggy, I watched the end boss in video form and was happy with that. I normally bring that one up in "do you have to finish a game to make the final call?" type discussions but I will go it here as well.

[KingMike]

Nintentei TriHard used Take Down on youtube.

But they're okay guys, their Ability is Rock Head!

[Chpexo]

.

[FAST6191]

Pretty much a reason to stop using YouTube especially if you need it to make money. I doubt this is the end of these legally shenanigans. Nintendo does have the right to do this but I wonder if it will pay off in time.

Not sure what context I am supposed to read first part in but I will risk a "first they came" comment there -- they still have plenty of new and interesting stuff all the time so I will stick around for that. Others (mainly elsewhere) say "go to somewhere else", which is fine and you might well find somewhere to host your videos but there is a lot to be said for the "organic" views/growth options, along with ad revenue if you care about that sort of thing, that youtube provides.

As for time will tell... have you not seen a dying company that does not get technology before?

[SunGodPortal]

This can only hurt Nintendo (their own actions) and the fact that they can't see that shows how clueless they are.

[JCE3000GT]

Ugh, more Nintendo bullshit.  I am just done with that company and it's "modern" products. 

This can only hurt Nintendo (their own actions) and the fact that they can't see that shows how clueless they are.

^ This.  Agree completely.  Even if I wanted a new Nintendo product I likely would not buy it based on this and other questionable actions by this company in recent memory. 

[Disch]

Am I the only one that doesn't think this is a horrible move by Nintendo?

Mario Maker is going to introduce a whole new group of people to game modding -- so people are going to go online to see videos of custom levels, only to discover that they can do it for free without buying Mario Maker at all.  Makes perfect sense to me to try to take those videos down.

As for this "hurting" them -- I don't think their demographic really is as virtuous as the handful of people here.  The handful of ex-Nintendo fans who refuse to buy their system out of principle is not going to break their business.  Most gamers don't give a shit.


So yeah, it makes perfect sense to me.  Do I think they'll be successful?  Of course not.  History has shown over and over and over again that when one company tries to go up against the mass piracy/emulation internet culture, the company loses.

[KingMike]

Have the Japanese yet entered the word KAIZO into that "whole new group of people"'s vocabulary?

[SunGodPortal]

Am I the only one that doesn't think this is a horrible move by Nintendo?

Yes. You are. LOL

Mario Maker is going to introduce a whole new group of people to game modding -- so people are going to go online to see videos of custom levels, only to discover that they can do it for free without buying Mario Maker at all.  Makes perfect sense to me to try to take those videos down.

I don't think anyone here thinks Nintendo is going beyond their rights. We just think they're douches. If Nintendo wasn't stupid, they'd realize that this isn't going to stop anyone from hacking their games. It's just going to make more people hate them and the people who do hate them, hate them more. Most of the people who are going to buy Mario Maker probably aren't hackers anyway (since it's such a niche thing), so what business would it steal from them?

Does the current flash in the pan pop/rock star make youtubers take down their videos of them doing a shitty cover of their songs in their bedrooms? No, because that's a dick move with no gain.

As for this "hurting" them -- I don't think their demographic really is as virtuous as the handful of people here.  The handful of ex-Nintendo fans who refuse to buy their system out of principle is not going to break their business.  Most gamers don't give a shit.

My point is that they gain nothing from this. They piss people off, they waste money on whatever legal fees they might incur and for what? We've already established that hacking is niche so it's not because of a realistic source of competiton. Most gamers don't give a shit, just as most gamers don't hack. So they accomplish nothing with this move. They only waste time, resources and alienate people. Fuck Nintendo.

[Disch]

If Nintendo wasn't stupid, they'd realize that this isn't going to stop anyone from hacking their games.

Yeah, but it will "hide" ROM-hacking from people who don't already know about it, thus preventing increased piracy.

It's like a said before -- with the release of Mario Maker, people are going to flock to the internet to look at custom levels.  When they see stuff that was made without Mario Maker, they'll be like "wtf do I need Mario Maker for?"

This is an attempt to squash that.

My point is that they gain nothing from this.

They gain in that they potentially prevent new pirates from appearing.

They piss people off

They piss hackers/pirates off... but why should they give a shit about them?

We've already established that hacking is niche so it's not because of a realistic source of competiton.

Yes it's niche because most people don't know about it.  But they'll find out about it once MM is released and these kinds of videos are still floating around YouTube.

[M-Tee]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Nintendo taking down anything that uses any significant portion of their intellectual property.

It dilutes and taints their branding, and with Mario Maker out, does provide a competing service.

Everyone in this game knows where they stand, and when you choose to build a house on someone else's land (or for a better comparison for most of this stuff, paint the shutters on someone else's house), there's always the chance that that homeowner or landowner's going to come take it back.

If one doesn't want to play said game, one should develop their own product from the ground up. Otherwise, just roll with the punches.

Also, the coversong in a bedroom analogy is a poor one. A better one would be if all the masters from a record company's history were to have leaked online, and folks were using them extensively to release products ranging from slightly to very different.

[SunGodPortal]

Yeah, but it will "hide" ROM-hacking from people who don't already know about it, thus preventing increased piracy.

Yes it's niche because most people don't know about it.  But they'll find out about it once MM is released and these kinds of videos are still floating around YouTube.

The 21st century does not allow "hiding".

When they see stuff that was made without Mario Maker, they'll be like "wtf do I need Mario Maker for?"

Because some buggy editor that is game specific with tight restrictions and an end result that will only work on some homemade program (emulators) and Mario Maker are not the same thing.

Also, the coversong in a bedroom analogy is a poor one. A better one would be if all the masters from a record company's history were to have leaked online, and folks were using them extensively to release products ranging from slightly to very different.

Your analogy would be better if hackers had access to the source code and used their modifications to make money. Besides, isn't the recording industry dead already?

Anyway, my point with that was that someone doing something that no one knows or cares about in these cases is not a threat. To continue with this... If someone downloads a bunch of MP3s (or rips tracks from the CDs they own) and makes a remix of a bunch of old songs and uploads them to youtube it doesn't harm the original artists or the record company (if no money is being made, it is a neutral rather than a negative), so the record companies pursuing legal action would accomplish nothing more than to make themselves look like assholes. Lawyers might get tight pants, but everyone else would just grimace.

[Erockbrox]

I say just hit them harder than ever. Create a rom hacking company which makes badass rom hacks of Nintendos IP's. People will LOVE the new romhacks and support the work. Nintendo will shut down the rom hacking company thus hurting lots of fans and hurting their own image. People then hate Nintendo and Nintendo goes out of business because no one will support them anymore.

[SunGodPortal]

I say just hit them harder than ever. Create a rom hacking company which makes badass rom hacks of Nintendos IP's. People will LOVE the new romhacks and support the work. Nintendo will shut down the rom hacking company thus hunting lots of fans and hurting their own image. People then hate Nintendo and Nintendo goes out of business because no one will support them anymore.