Topic: Angry Joe Got a Wii U

Even if it wasn't Nintendo, they should know about this, since a lot of people have been complaining about it, so it's still their fault for letting YouTube do this.

A popular video game reviewer.

He can still review the games, he just has to mute the audio. I guess he misunderstood why Nintendo claimed his videos.

Not entirely sure what the problem is anyways? Since I just click "ok" or whatever when I get those claims, and my videos are perfectly fine.

Reviewing the playing video games is his job, and he can't make money off of videos if Nintendo claims it.

He can review Nintendo games and still make money off of those videos, he just needs to follow the rules that come with it. Maybe he should contact Nintendo about how he can use their content for his videos.

I was mainly being a smart alec, because there is no way these policies could have been around in 1996, if YouTube didn't even exist at all.

It isn't free advertising. If it was free advertising, then the people posting the videos wouldn't be making money. SOMEONE is giving these people money to post videos about stuff. They just so happen to be posting about Nintendo's games, and Nintendo is claiming it as related to their property, which YouTube allows. It's the same reasoning why other companies don't want their film or sound studio productions on YouTube. They want you to buy the stuff instead of watching or listening to it on YouTube, so they can either say the YouTube content is over the limit, or monetize it. YouTube is being the middleman of it all, to save their own rears from video uploaders that may pass the line on what they post, so we might as well be complaining that YouTube has this policy.

If you create ORIGINAL content and post it on YouTube, no company in the world can claim any part of it.
I'm pretty sure Angry Joe was joking, because otherwise this whole thing he posted really is an epic fail.

This. There is a variety of ways they can handle the situation. Nintendo doesn't want the audio to be heard, and I think they push their own advertisements along with whatever the poster already has. They will still make money, regardless, but Nintendo still has partial control, because of the policy.

If I was making ANY amount of money on YouTube, I wouldn't even be b****ing, but that's just me. I've only seen like a couple of this guys videos, and he acts like a grown child on purpose, it seems. Oh well, it's his job.

I disagree, solely on the basis that pulling this stuff still encourages people to not cover Nintendo's stuff.

Now, he was posting non-review content in this case which means Nintendo at least actually has a case (even through a music based technicality, doing this for a review would be a **** move) but I would just leave well enough alone instead of trying to anger people who have sometimes millions of people watching them. Nothing good can really come from that.

Ya, but they are only getting a fraction of any sort of money he could make, and that's beside the point that he specifically got a Wii U from his followers who donated enough for him to even have a Wii U.

If he doesn't make any Wii U reviews, then he's betraying his followers who donated for him to have one. He can either follow Nintendo's guidelines, or somehow return all the money his donors gave him. I don't make YouTube videos, and I knew Nintendo was monetizing this stuff, so a guy like Angry Joe must really be mad to have not noticed this, beforehand.

I understand he is doing video game posts on YouTube, but this actually isn't all that uncommon if we take film and sound studio productions into consideration. Also, for people saying Microsoft and Sony aren't charging for posting videos online, you are already basically paying for that via Xbox Live or PSN, but of course everyone conveniently forgot that.

Only the most blinded of fanboys could think that Nintendo's approach to YouTube was a good idea. Claiming the revenue from videos that are hours long for playing a trailer? Actively causing YouTuber's to simply ignore covering Nintendo games because the good ones can't afford to? You dun goofed Nintendo. Fix it.

"Angry Toe" Got a Wii U i.e. why the f*ck should I care.

Meanwhile, Microsoft and Sony are charging for Xbox Live and PS+. What fanboy's would pay for such a thing? It's only a fraction of what they make, so the good YouTubers SHOULD be able to look past that. OF COURSE, YouTube has nothing to do with this. * wink wink *

It isn't about whether it is a good idea or not. It is about people getting frustrated at the idea that they cannot make money off of other people's content. If you take Nintendo out of the situation and insert any other company, it is still the companies owned content that others are using to make money. There are plenty of YouTubers that are able to display Nintendo content and not have problems. Why is this? Why is it Strictly Nintendo and Game Explain are able to do this without problem but others can't? Maybe they need to contact Nintendo and figure out how they can use their content correctly.

You don't seem to quite understand the concept do you? It is free advertising for Nintendo, because Nintendo isn't paying them. Whether or not someone else is indirectly paying them is absolutely irrelevant to that fact. You don't believe that people should be able to make money playing or showing games, that's fine, but that doesn't affect the point being made, and Nintendo following from that ideology would only harm them as a company.

It's the same reasoning why other companies don't want their film or sound studio productions on YouTube

No, because someone uploading a film or TV show is blatant stealing. Games are different, and note that no other games company is stupid enough to stand in the way of that.

SCAR, you are so wrong its not even funny. I love Nintendo. I love everything about Nintendo..almost. I have done IP law, so I am aware of the nuances. But Nintendo's (and other studios including Sony Digital Entertainment and until recently Microsoft) policy on this is so backwards its not even funny. Why in the hell would someone who makes money from doing YouTube videos spend the hours to play a Nintendo game, the additional hours it takes to upload and edit said videos to YouTube, if Nintendo is going to take all of their money doing it? Especially, when other publishers (Ubisoft especially) are so YouTube friendly? It makes ZERO financial sense. Can Nintendo really afford not to allow these types of videos? It is advertising that they don't have to spend any money on. Angry Joe has a lot of watchers who like PS4 or XBox 1 and in order for Nintendo to be relevant long term, they need those types of gamers to be interested again. If Angry Joe would have been able to get on there and post a review of Mario Kart 8 or Smash that would have gone a long way in a lot of his viewers minds.

Now...it is just another knock against Nintendo. I don't blame him for calling Nintendo out. With everything else that is going against them right now, they should be the most friendly publisher/developer when it comes to YouTube and social media. Instead they are very close minded and it will hurt them long term with folks who enjoy video games.

This is not true either. There are more than a few publishers who don't allow it.

@cameronbelmont
They aren't even getting all of their money. Companies are only claiming only a fraction of what they make, and it's usually by advertisements that would have been there anyway. If you really want to complain about "backwards" policies, then let's discuss PS+ and Xbox Live, but wait, that's Microsoft and Sony, so it must be ok. * wink wink *

Sony and Microsoft charge for their system subscriptions? So? How does that have to do with any of this? That's their choice, and the consumers choice to choose whether or not its worth getting those services and the products. Also, what's with your insistence on blaming Youtube for this? I know I joke about people here not seeing any fault in Nintendo sometimes but I despair when I actually see it. Youtube provides a system whereby companies can claim videos using their content if they wish. Its a stupid system to use for games. Note however, that Nintendo is the only big company out there that actually uses it for claiming videos about games. Nintendo endorse its use and agree to use it - its their fault, and they only harm themselves by doing so.

They get all of the money Angry Joe would have made from any Nintendo content.

And why even bring PS4 or XBox into this? We are discussing Nintendo. Nintendo's bad actions aren't justified because Sony and Microsoft have also made bade ones. It is so shortsighted to blame the YouTuber for this.

It is relevant, though, because if I was buying copies of new movies, then charging for them to be shown at my house on a 4K TV, then I would be breaking the law, because it says it's not "for commercial use".

These people are making money off of copyrighted material, which has been a policy outside of YouTube since VHS tapes. It just made it's way to the internet; specifically YouTube.

Again this is blatantly false. Sony doesn't allow it. Microsoft didn't until a few days ago. Some are just ambiguous enough to scare many people away from doing it.

I agree with everything else.