Forums

Topic: Angry Joe Got a Wii U

Posts 41 to 60 of 140

cameronbelmont

SCAR392 wrote:

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.

No it is not relevant at all, actually. From a legal standpoint, yes, Nintendo has the right enforce its Copyright in its IP. No one is arguing that or that it is unfair that a company has that power. I think they should. We are simply saying Nintendo is bat $#@! crazy and shortsighted for doing so.

Currently Playing: Dragon Age: Inquisition

Geonjaha

DefHalan wrote:

Geonjaha wrote:

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.

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.

Why does the sad truth of these arguments always come down to pettiness? You personally don't think Youtubers should be able to make money showing off other peoples games, and for some reason you actually believe that Nintendo follows the same ideas. The fact of the matter is that people have this as their jobs, and sustain themselves like this. You being jealous of that doesn't change anything, and wanting to take away their jobs is just petty. Really? You want these people to lose their jobs that they've had for years now because you don't approve of it?

It doesn't even matter at the end of the day, because people go to the good/popular YouTubers for the person themselves, not the games they play. All this copyright claim stuff has meant that many of the big YouTubers (Y'know, ones that actually have this as their job, and therefore invest most of their working hours into it) simply don't cover Nintendo games anymore. They carry on fine playing other games, without losing money, and Nintendo loses out on free advertising.

Geonjaha

3DS Friend Code: 2277-6645-7215

SCRAPPER392

cameronbelmont wrote:

SCAR392 wrote:

@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 *

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.

They aren't getting all of the money from the videos; ONLY A FRACTION. I've already said that like 3 times. Nintendo isn't getting all of the video money; ONLY A FRACTION.

I can bring Microsoft and Sony into the discussion, because they avoided this by charging for Xbox Live and PS+. If you are going to complain about Nintendo claiming SOME revenue from YouTube videos, you might as well complain about Xbox Live and PS+ being paid services.

Qwest

3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children

DefHalan

Geonjaha wrote:

DefHalan wrote:

Geonjaha wrote:

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.

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.

Why does the sad truth of these arguments always come down to pettiness? You personally don't think Youtubers should be able to make money showing off other peoples games, and for some reason you actually believe that Nintendo follows the same ideas. The fact of the matter is that people have this as their jobs, and sustain themselves like this. You being jealous of that doesn't change anything, and wanting to take away their jobs is just petty. Really? You want these people to lose their jobs that they've had for years now because you don't approve of it?

It doesn't even matter at the end of the day, because people go to the good/popular YouTubers for the person themselves, not the games they play. All this copyright claim stuff has meant that many of the big YouTubers (Y'know, ones that actually have this as their job, and therefore invest most of their working hours into it) simply don't cover Nintendo games anymore. They carry on fine playing other games, without losing money, and Nintendo loses out on free advertising.

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Please read what you quoted from me.

People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

cameronbelmont

SCAR392 wrote:

They aren't getting all of the money from the videos; ONLY A FRACTION. I've already said that like 3 times. Nintendo isn't getting all of the video money; ONLY A FRACTION.

I can bring Microsoft and Sony into the discussion, because they avoided this by charging for Xbox Live and PS+. If you are going to complain about Nintendo claiming SOME revenue from YouTube videos, you might as well complain about Xbox Live and PS+ being paid services.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Nintendo gets every cent that Angry Joe would have gotten when they made the copyright claim. Every last penny. Joe gets nothing. YouTube gets a cut, but they would have gotten the same cut regardless. They won't get more or less due to Nintendo's claim.

I will complain about PS4 and XBox One subscriptions, but they are in no way related to YouTube! Their decision to charge for their online networks was not made as a way to compensate for YouTubers making money off of their games. It was independent. You really don't believe otherwise, do you? And if you do I would really like to see a source that says as much. Otherwise it is groundless speculation.

Currently Playing: Dragon Age: Inquisition

SCRAPPER392

cameronbelmont wrote:

SCAR392 wrote:

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.

No it is not relevant at all, actually. From a legal standpoint, yes, Nintendo has the right enforce its Copyright in its IP. No one is arguing that or that it is unfair that a company has that power. I think they should. We are simply saying Nintendo is bat $#@! crazy and shortsighted for doing so.

Yes it is. You can't show blu-ray discs you bought at the store for paid showings. The same applies here with video games on YouTube. It is legal for Nintendo to claim revenue on their copyrighted material, which is allowing people to post videos of their games on YouTube, as long as they meet the guidelines. This is basically putting the FBI warning at the beginning of your movie into Nintendo's hands.

That's why YouTube created this policy in the first place, because then if someone posts copyrighted material, then the company who owns the property can manage their IPs, without the legal system getting immediately involved.

Qwest

3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children

SCRAPPER392

cameronbelmont wrote:

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Nintendo gets every cent that Angry Joe would have gotten when they made the copyright claim. Every last penny. Joe gets nothing. YouTube gets a cut, but they would have gotten the same cut regardless. They won't get more or less due to Nintendo's claim.

I will complain about PS4 and XBox One subscriptions, but they are in no way related to YouTube! Their decision to charge for their online networks was not made as a way to compensate for YouTubers making money off of their games. It was independent. You really don't believe otherwise, do you? And if you do I would really like to see a source that says as much. Otherwise it is groundless speculation.

Nintendo IS only getting a fraction of their cut. I'm not being obtuse; you are just being ignorant. If Angry Joe makes $100 on his video, then Nintendo would get like $10 or $20. They don't get all the money, period.

Xbox Live and PSN are relevant to the discussion, because they are already charging their customers somewhere else. How do you think they would look if they were charging for Xbox Live/PS+, AND claiming revenue on YouTube videos? In this case, Nintendo is only claiming video revenue on YouTube. There's a lot more people paying for Xbox Live and PS+ than there are people making Nintendo related videos, and they've been charging for Xbox Live and PS+ for years. That is where they are making their money instead.

Qwest

3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children

cameronbelmont

SCAR392 wrote:

Yes it is. You can't show blu-ray discs you bought at the store for paid showings. The same applies here with video games on YouTube. It is legal for Nintendo to claim revenue on their copyrighted material, which is allowing people to post videos of their games on YouTube, as long as they meet the guidelines. This is basically putting the FBI warning at the beginning of your movie into Nintendo's hands.

That's why YouTube created this policy in the first place, because then if someone posts copyrighted material, then the company who owns the property can manage their IPs, without the legal system getting immediately involved.

Did you even read what I wrote? NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT ABOUT NINTENDO'S LEGAL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!! They should have the ability to stop someone from profiting. You don't have to explain the law to me....I am a lawyer. I do this for a living.

This issue is not can they do it (they can) but if they should (they shouldn't). There is nothing in IP law that prevents them from allowing others to make money off of their videos (as Ubisoft has shown).

Currently Playing: Dragon Age: Inquisition

Jacob717

Spanjard wrote:

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

You seem to cared enough to have clicked on this thread.

Edited on by Jacob717

Jacob717

cameronbelmont

@SCAR392 I quit. You are obviously a troll, a kid, or worse. Best of luck to you.

Currently Playing: Dragon Age: Inquisition

Geonjaha

SCAR392 wrote:

cameronbelmont wrote:

SCAR392 wrote:

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.

No it is not relevant at all, actually. From a legal standpoint, yes, Nintendo has the right enforce its Copyright in its IP. No one is arguing that or that it is unfair that a company has that power. I think they should. We are simply saying Nintendo is bat $#@! crazy and shortsighted for doing so.

Yes it is. You can't show blu-ray discs you bought at the store for paid showings. The same applies here with video games on YouTube. It is legal for Nintendo to claim revenue on their copyrighted material, which is allowing people to post videos of their games on YouTube, as long as they meet the guidelines. This is basically putting the FBI warning at the beginning of your movie into Nintendo's hands.

That's why YouTube created this policy in the first place, because then if someone posts copyrighted material, then the company who owns the property can manage their IPs, without the legal system getting immediately involved.

  • Showing off blu-rays you bought for money is illegal, yes.
  • Making a Youtube video about a game is not illegal. (Unless the company chooses for it not to be allowed, like Nintendo is doing).

The difference is that with the blu-rays, its illegal in all cases, but with games on YouTube, its only illegal if companies choose for it to be. Just because they can choose for it to be disallowed, doesn't necessarily mean they should, or even have to disallow it.

If you reply to this, point out which part you believe not to be true.

Edited on by Geonjaha

Geonjaha

3DS Friend Code: 2277-6645-7215

SCRAPPER392

cameronbelmont wrote:

@SCAR392 I quit. You are obviously a troll, a kid, or worse. Best of luck to you.

Ok, bye.

Geonjaha wrote:

  • Showing off blu-rays you bought for money is illegal, yes.
  • Making a Youtube video about a game is not illegal. (Unless the company chooses for it not to be allowed, like Nintendo is doing).

The difference is that with the blu-rays, its illegal in all cases, but with games on YouTube, its only illegal if companies choose for it to be. Just because they can choose for it to be disallowed, doesn't necessarily mean they should, or even have to disallow it.

If you reply to this, point out which part you believe not to be true.

I agree with all of it. You guys don't think Nintendo should be doing this, but they do, so they are. That's basically all there is to it. That's why I am saying that Angry Joe either needs to follow the guidelines that Nintendo has, so that his Wii U donors can get the reviews they donated for, or return the money they gave him to buy a Wii U and some games.

Edited on by SCRAPPER392

Qwest

3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children

DefHalan

SCAR392 wrote:

Geonjaha wrote:

  • Showing off blu-rays you bought for money is illegal, yes.
  • Making a Youtube video about a game is not illegal. (Unless the company chooses for it not to be allowed, like Nintendo is doing).

The difference is that with the blu-rays, its illegal in all cases, but with games on YouTube, its only illegal if companies choose for it to be. Just because they can choose for it to be disallowed, doesn't necessarily mean they should, or even have to disallow it.

If you reply to this, point out which part you believe not to be true.

I agree with all of it. You guys don't think Nintendo should be doing this, but they do, so they are. That's basically all there is to it. That's why I am saying that Angry Joe either needs to follow the guidelines that Nintendo made, so that his Wii U donors can get the reviews they donated for, or return the money they gave him to buy a Wii U and some games.

I agree with that. He just needs to follow the guidelines and everything will be fine.

People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

SCRAPPER392

@DefHalen
Or return the money to the people he got donations from, for a Wii U, if he isn't going to do reviews, because that's why they donated in the first place.

Qwest

3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children

LzWinky

I never liked the guy.

Also, aren't there so many other reviewers for the Wii U stuff now with the content on their videos?

Current games: Everything on Switch

Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

Dreamsleep

arronishere wrote:

SCAR392 wrote:

arronishere wrote:

Who's Angry Joe?

Some guy who got a Wii U for free, because people donated to his YouTube ventures. He already makes money from them watching his videos, and now he doesn't want to do reviews for a Wii U that his donors paid for, because Nintendo will claim revenue on his videos. That's what the video above shows, anyway.

So to sum up, a random guy is angry on the internet.

Drama queen, yes. It's like the guys that play a game, and capture it, and all the while overreact to everything, and use as much foul language as possible. It's so fake, and forced, and uninteresting, I really don't understand why people watch them. But, they do...and they do in droves.

Atari 2600, Commodore 64/128, Sega Genesis, 32X, Sega CD, PC, Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, Wii, PSP, DSi, PS3, 3DSXL, WiiU

SCRAPPER392

TingLz wrote:

I never liked the guy.

Also, aren't there so many other reviewers for the Wii U stuff now with the content on their videos?

Yes, and they follow the guidelines like they are supposed to. Apparently, Angry Joe gets a Wii U for free from donators, then complains about Nintendo's guidelines. He fails to realize that having a Wii U dramatically increases the amount of videos he can potentially make, which is more money, even if Nintendo gets a cut, and it's for a Wii U and a couple games he didn't even pay for in the first place.

He's being an entitled, ignorant, donation moocher, currently, and this is truth based on the video in the OP.

Edited on by SCRAPPER392

Qwest

3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children

64supermario

SCAR392 wrote:

TingLz wrote:

I never liked the guy.

Also, aren't there so many other reviewers for the Wii U stuff now with the content on their videos?

Yes, and they follow the guidelines like they are supposed to. Apparently, Angry Joe gets a Wii U for free from donators, then complains about Nintendo's guidelines. He fails to realize that having a Wii U dramatically increases the amount of videos he can potentially make, which is more money, even if Nintendo gets a cut, and it's for a Wii U and a couple games he didn't even pay for in the first place.

He's being an entitled, ignorant, donation moocher, currently, and this is truth based on the video in the OP.

Its true that they do try to follow the guidelines...but they complain about them all the times. AngryJoe may be new to the whole scene and its his own ignorance to blame but as far as I can tell none of the people that do the little workarounds to do Nintendo reviews do not enjoy doing it and wish Nintendo would make it easier. Nintendo is really the only big publisher that is still doing this consistently, I think its time for it to go too honestly.

Boss Conquest and Epic Gamers on YouTube: www.youtube.com/channel/UCr-BdNM7x84aTBodCXQNlOg Also Majora's Mask is the best game ever! Search your feelings you know it to be true!

Nintendo Network ID: 64supermario | Twitter:

SCRAPPER392

64supermario wrote:

SCAR392 wrote:

TingLz wrote:

I never liked the guy.

Also, aren't there so many other reviewers for the Wii U stuff now with the content on their videos?

Yes, and they follow the guidelines like they are supposed to. Apparently, Angry Joe gets a Wii U for free from donators, then complains about Nintendo's guidelines. He fails to realize that having a Wii U dramatically increases the amount of videos he can potentially make, which is more money, even if Nintendo gets a cut, and it's for a Wii U and a couple games he didn't even pay for in the first place.

He's being an entitled, ignorant, donation moocher, currently, and this is truth based on the video in the OP.

Its true that they do try to follow the guidelines...but they complain about them all the times. AngryJoe may be new to the whole scene and its his own ignorance to blame but as far as I can tell none of the people that do the little workarounds to do Nintendo reviews do not enjoy doing it and wish Nintendo would make it easier. Nintendo is really the only big publisher that is still doing this consistently, I think its time for it to go too honestly.

I'm sure it is not ideal. I never disagreed with that, but that's how it is. If people want to make Nintendo videos on YouTube and make money off of it, then they have to follow the guidelines and give Nintendo a cut.

He already got a Wii U for free, so I honestly don't understand why he would go a step further and say that it's ridiculous to expect videos for it, beause of Nintendo's guidelines. That's why he got it in the first place. He needs to either follow through with Wii U reviews, like he said he would, or return the money to his donors. I would feel ripped off if I donated to something, then it was all a waste and they held onto my money. That's what will happen if he doesn't post Wii U videos.

Qwest

3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children

Donutman

if you own a franchiseed business, you pay for the right to use their name and products to make money for yourself. It is no different with Nintendo and youtube and anyone who wants to make money off of Nintendo products. Nintendo has the right to do what it wants no matter how dumb people might be who don't understand the legal side of this. Hate on Nintendo, but this happens in all aspects of business. Do you think I can start selling hamburgers and from my own new business, I named after myself, mcdonalds? NO. McDonalds is going to take every penny from my burger sales since im trying to use their fame to make my money. It is no different. Only video games seems to attract immature people who don't understand anything when it comes to the real world.
And sorry, I have been a gamer for 32 years and I love Nintendo and only have any hate towards idiots.

Donutman

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.