YouTuber Gets Banned From Site For Streaming Super Mario Odyssey

Serves them right! I hate spoilers with a passion.

And for people who say this is overkill, this person was ruining the experience for people forever, you can only experience a game for the first time once, afterall.

Freaking jerks. Ruin it for everyone else.

Not a harsh punishment.. He should know better than to try and reduce people's enjoyment of the game.
I hate coming across spoilers...

Good riddance. Also, love the choice of picture.

That picture is so appropriate.

Won't be playing this till CHRISTmas so does anybody have a giant bubble I can live in for a couple months?!

I personally think Nintendo should ban themselves for all of the footage they've shown thus far.

It's a Mario game - what spoilers!?!?!?

Nintnedo, as always, is insane. Youtube even more so. How does streaming vids of a game, any game, justify a ban? Don't watch it, simple. Hopefully there is more to the story, like subliminal swastikas or something.

They just banned him? Not harsh enough
CHINESE WATER TORTURE!

@Spoony_Tech Funny, I was thinking about asking you about that the other night, thought you might be holding out for this one for the kids for Christmas. Can't think of a better gift. And you guys always have plenty to play anyway. Maybe after Friday Nitneod can finally start talking about the Zelda story DLC and release that in November alongside the amiibo.

@JHDK

I don't think you understand what happened here. He did not receive this game as an early access copy like the gaming journalists do. His local gaming store broke the street date by a week and he just bought the game there. No NDA to deal with.

I do think Youtube did the right thing, however the actual culprit was not punished. The culprit being the game store that broke the street date. Nintendo should punish that store harshly by shipping their copies of the next big gale late or not at all. WIll serve them right.

@rjejr
Unannounced levels, features, content, unlockables, etc.

If Nintendo’s so strict with street dates, surely it has the wisdom to not ship copies to retailers so early. It seems like such a simple solution to the problem?!

I agree with the article. The retail store is really to blame for this. Sure, the guy leaked footage, but I wasn't forced to watch it and neither was anyone else, so no harm was really done.

The comments are a joke. He received his retail copy early. What YouTube rules did he break? Nintendo has every right to take down the videos but banning him for 3 months for going to a story and buying something? That’s not his fault.

@ledreppe A simple solution would be for retailers for to not sell the game until the release date. Nintendo needs to ship these out to account for any problems that might occur along the way. A three-day lead could turn into a just "getting there launch day" situation fast.

@the8thark Good call. I edited my comment.

I think Nintendo overstepped their boundaries. I had a feeling this is why they had that thing with YT over streaming games. Definitely agree with anyone who uses common sense to not watch a video if you want to avoid spoilers.

I mean, if that's the case, are you mad when someone spoils the surprise of what happens when you play tag on a highway? If it were the whole game with all of the story elements, teased as, "Super Mario Odyssey isn't coming out; here's why." and you watch it, that's acceptable--you fell for a trap. When the video is clearly titled and you watch it, then complain--you're just seeking attention.

Good job Nintendo! Serves them right

I work in retail and all of our stock arrived today. Console bundle, amiibos and the game. It's so painful seeing it all there.
Not too much longer to wait but when it's right there.... ARRRRGHHH!

Nintendo should punish themselves for shipping copies of the game to retailers early.

And the second guilty party is the retailer: he/she could have known the official release date that Nintendo wanted to use for this game, so handing out copies earlier than that, whether they are officially sold and bought or not, is kind of stupid, and undermining the whole sales & marketing trajectory of the game.

But the buyer is not to blame, not at ALL. If you possess a legally bought copy of a game, you should by all rights be able to play and share that with others, even on YouTube.

The ban is ridiculous and so is the removal of the videos. If you don't like spoilers of games, simply don't watch the videos that people make about them: nobody is holding a gun to your head...

@thesilverbrick exactly.

Soon enough Nintendo is going to have armed guards on patrol at stores, with orders to shoot on sight any customers walking out of stores with new Nintendo games or products.

@rjejr Completely agree with you. The insanity is almost unbelievable...

@rjejr Well I'm getting a copy for my brother as well just to see if Best Buy gives me another $10 rewards for pre-ordering. He will be playing it day one so I will sneak over his house and play a level.......or 10 lol.

@Bobby_earl YouTube Terms of Service: 5.1 M

You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content.

The game isnt meant to be publicly available yet. The content isnt even meant to be out. Just because he bought the game does not mean he has consent. He doesnt have their consent to have it thos early and stream it. He did break Youtube TOS.

@ThanosReXXX

A lot of people seem to be blaming this on Nintendo, but Nintendo have done nothing wrong... they have every legal right to have videos of their games removed regardless of whether the game has or hasn't been released yet.

The banning is on YouTube's end, and I think it's an automatic response whenever any user has multiple copyright claims raised against them... by the sounds of it this guy uploaded several videos of Odyssey footage in addition to just streaming it, so that would have generated enough copyright flags to trigger the banning.

@Ichiban LOL

Hey guys, there's a Google Chrome extension that can hide select videos on Youtube if you want to avoid spoilers easier. I think there's a link on a Nintendo themed reddit page, but a quick google can probably find it quickly.

@MrGamerClock64 That's worth a 3 month ban? It's not like he's selling nuclear secrets to the North Koreans, it's a Mario game, it's going to have secrets and levels and unlockables, that's the way these games work. I'm not opposed to Nintnedo taking the vids down, they own the game, so it's their right I suppose, but a 3 month ban over some video game footage sounds kind of nuts. Racism, sexism, violence, there are disturbing images that should get people banned, but video game spoilers in a Mario game?

@ThanosReXXX Why wouldn't they ship early to account for mishaps that can occur? When exactly are they supposed to ship them?

@BLP_Software True, but he shouldn't have been given the opportunity to make himself guilty of said facts, courtesy of guilty parties nr.1 and 2, as described in my earlier comment.

So basically, Nintendo and the retailer set this guy up to take the fall for something that shouldn't have been possible in the first place, because he should not even have been able to buy the game officially yet. But strangely enough, that is EXACTLY what happened.

Nintendo putting the knife in the hands of the murderer, so to speak...

@AlexOlney A sentence until the heat death of the universe. Cruel

@BLP_Software I read that. I don’t see where it states anything about pre-released games. That states no one can without permission. Including games already released.

Nintendo can take down the videos. But a 3 month ban? Justification?

@Nintendoforlife When I used to work for Hewlett Packard, entire bulk shipments, and we're talking sea containers and double size trucks here, were transported overnight, to stores all across Europe and America, so one or two days tops should be more than enough.

@ThanosReXXX Err...no.

Games get shipped early. Thats normal. Stores are under strict orders but here in the EU the no fs arw given it seems.

So, the retailer broke street date. Thats the first issue.

Then the guy lived streamed the game breaking Youtube TOS. Here's the thing. As far as they care, he doesnt have consent to have the game. Believe it or not he doesnt he just got it early via the store breaking embargos. The game he owns is not consented by Nintendo to be out yet. For YouTube, that breaks TOS. They ban him.

@Bobby_earl You break YouTube TOS you get banned. Take it up with them. He had a game he wasnt consented to have regardless of how he got it, Youtube took it down of their own will.

@Spoony_Tech Coal in your stocking unless the nieces and nephews also get in on the action.

@DragonEleven Thanks for the explanation. I still disagree w/ the action, but at least the explanation makes sense.

@BLP_Software Sorry man, don't agree. If you don't want people to spray can your walls, you shouldn't be handing out spray cans.

Nintendo was at fault for (apparently) not restricting the retailer and telling him/her that the game is not supposed to be sold before Friday, and the retailer was at fault for selling the game early, while the official release date MUST have been known to them, so he could also have told the buyer to wait a few more days because he wasn't allowed to sell the game yet.

What kind of spoilers in a Mario game? Bowser as the final boss? Peach being kidnapped? who woulda thought!?

@ThanosReXXX Is that comparable to the demand of games. Do people actively wait for a release date of a printer or gaming PC then rush in that day? We know in two days people will be expecting a large stock of Super Mario Odyssey in store, are people expecting the same from HP? In my opinion the detriment is higher for Nintendo, if they fail to get their games on the shelves when planned.

@rjejr
Still an unfair thing to do, and ruins people's experience. The game is not even released yet, so it's not only the user's fault, it's also the retailer that gave him the copy way too early. This is similar to the Switch leak that was actually stolen.

@DragonEleven Ah... the old three strike rule...
I even apply that myself, so fair enough where that part is concerned.

Nintendo and the retailer, though...

I unfortunately had the end boss and a few secrets spoiled for me while on youtube, on my recommended videos was a video with the spoilers right in the thumbnail complete with title and pictures. It's a Mario game so it was nothing that would prevent me from enjoying it regardless, but it was a total "o come on dude" moment.

@BLP_Software again. Your quote is regarding content. Not pre-released content. ALL content. Technically YouTube can do whatever they want with their TOS. You’re missing the point.

ANYONE can buy a video game at a store, stream it and get in trouble. You can’t even prove that every person who buys a copy before release date even knows the true release date in the first place. If you walk into Dum Dum games and buy a video game on the shelf and stream it. You can get in trouble.

Street date? Sorry, not everyone knows it. To be punished for buying a game legally then streaming it alone? Dumb.

@ThanosReXXX Funny, I was just thinking about you, MS is doing something w/ "Make your own Hologram" for rich people.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-41747005/inside-microsoft-s-new-mixed-reality-capture-studio

Normally Id' worry about derailing the thread but this thread kind of needs derailing. I linked a BBC website since NL.

Banning may be a little harsh, but generally I like this sort of thing. Too many people think the Internet is some sort of lawless safe space where they can say and do anything they want without fear of reprisal. Nice to see some hard justice thrown down.

@Kalmaro Exactly what I had in mind reading the article. I also believe live streamers contribute to this world getting dumber.

@ThanosReXXX How do you know that Nintendo didn't tell the retailer?

@Bobby_earl "Not pre-released content, ALL content"

So pre-released content isn't content then? What kind of backwards logic is that?

If you have the game, before it is consented to be out, if you stream or show that content without consent (I.e. embargo forms for reviewers), you are breaking those terms of service. It is that simple.

And here is a thing for you, if you break a rule without knowledge that rule exists, should you not be punished? Really? You think that's how it works?

They didn't buy the game legally. They got it before street date, yes in a legal avenue, but before the game was legally meant to be out by street date.

And yes, everyone knows the street date. Its on every damn trailer in this big font saying "27.10.17".

@ThanosReXXX I fail to see how Nintendo is at fault here. They do impose these restrictions. You get a game in you are under strict orders to NOT sell it before the time of consent, launch day. You can bet the retailer is being looked at heavily.

But here is the thing. That rule is perfectly valid for YouTube to enforce here. The point of consent for the licensor (Nintendo) to say they can show this game off, is the day it is sold, like it is for most games. This guy, no matter how you spin it, broke the terms of service.

@RupeeClock YouTube does have those rules.

TOS 5.1 M

You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content.

So, the point of consent is the day Nintendo has said "Its okay to sell this" or as writ in embargoes for reviewers.

@MrGamerClock64 "it's also the retailer that gave him the copy way too early."

Oh it's 100% the retailers fault. What penalty did they get? I'm guessing none.

@Nintendoforlife At first, I kind of chuckled over that comment, because of you grossly underestimating the demand for equipment like that, but that would be on me: sometimes I forget that not everybody's in the IT business.

So, to elaborate on that: the answer is yes, and maybe even more. HP is SO much more than the few examples you named. Shippings they did to stores (for private users) but also to distribution centers (for companies) also contained storage solutions, entire server farms, IT environments including PC's, printers, routers, modems and what not, their own software suites, and so on.

And nowadays, they've got their high end laptop and tablet line, which is highly popular, and which has sold (and continues to sell) far more than the average console, so yeah...

Just think along the lines of the iPhone fans: HP also has its dedicated fan base, and they too are eagerly awaiting every new iteration of whatever device HP brings out.

@BLP_Software As you can see in my comment #49 I actually understand and agree with the YouTube part, just not with how the YouTuber was put in a situation where he was legally able to get his hands on the game, while that shouldn't have been possible in the first place.

@ThanosReXXX Isn't everyone responsible for their own actions? I mean, it's bad for the retailer to sell the game too early but the guy couldv'e just played it and didn't tell anyone and enjoy the game.

The guy clearly wanted to be a show off with a product that isn't to be out yet. That's not Nintendo's fault, that's not the retailers fault. Ofcourse it's because of the retailer that he was able to do that, but that doesn't make it their fault. Would you blame BMW for selling me a car when I do a hit-and-run? I mean, they gave me a car so it's their fault I didn't something with it I'm not allowed to do. That doesn't make sense.

@ThanosReXXX I've reached out to YouTube, hopefully hear back about their official line on what happens if you buy the game before release and stream it

@BLP_Software And apparently, the retailer wasn't under strict rule. Either that, or he is really, REALLY stupid for selling a game earlier than supposed to, because he should know the consequences of doing that...

@BLP_Software please re-read what I have stated. I can’t say it any clearer for you.

Your ToS copy paste does not reference pre-release content. It states ALL content. That obviously includes pre-released. What kind of world would it not?

By your ToS copy pastes, technically any content that someone streams who does not have specific permission is breaking ToS. Not just pre-release content but a 20 year old game from a defunct company. “Sorry. You broke ToS bye”.

He went to the store. He bought the game. He streamed it. Take the videos down. Ban him? When others are not banned because not ever streamer has expressed permission for every game in existence? And food for thought: why can I still watch the whole game on youtube? They aren’t banned. I just checked. The ending is still there.

It’s ridiculous.

@rjejr Spoilers or not. he has the game illegitimately. a store breaking street date does not make it legitimate. It is legitimate once it is officially launched. Lawsuits can be filed for such situations.

@krvstkvlt if a BMW dealership sold a car before release date and the driver got in trouble for instagramming the buy? You think the retailer shouldn’t be punished? They broke Nintendo’s agreement with them specifically.

@krvstkvlt I would blame BMW for selling you a car that wasn't supposed to be on the market yet, so yes.

The justice system can be weird, and strict, like that.

@Bobby_earl Ive reached out to YouTube for their official line on this situation okay? With any luck they'll use this thing they seem scared of, communication, and reply. Then we will have their official line on this kind of situation

@ThanosReXXX Fair enough, thanks for the insight.

Keep in mind Nintendo banned livestreams too, so there are two reasons he got banned.

@Decapre There are some very curious Mario pictures out there. For example, cards licensed by Nintendo taught U.S. history in the 1980's. The results were... unusual.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/1789b35112b8c3c54b9997ef4e5b3f55/tumblr_inline_n63zaslvam1s2snpr.jpg

@ThanosReXXX @Nintendoforlife

Just a quick observation on the shipping thing.

Most video games still launch on Tuesdays. Most videogames are probably shipped from the same warehouses in the same trucks on Sunday or Monday to make sure they are in store to go on sale on Tuesday. Nintedo games go on sale on Friday but they show up in the stores on Monday with the other video games. I'm willing to bet no other games break street date more than Ntineod games b/c of that reason, they release on Friday. Most retail employees who are responsible for putting the games on the shelves work for minimum or near minimum wage. Games that come into the store on Monday they put out on the shelves Monday night or Tuesday morning. Target almost always has the Nintnedo Friday release games on store shelves on Tuesday. Target also has a system that keeps them from being rung up at the cash register until Friday, I know this b/c I've tried with at least 3 games over the years. I'm willing to bet smaller stores with old fashioned cash registers that run on cash would be more likely to break a street date b/c their system woudln't know.

May not be an excuse for breaking the ship date, but it's an absolute reason. Games all ship together from the warehouses on Monday to go on sale on Tuesday. Retail employees don't care.

@rjejr
Retailers do get punished, not in the way you expect though.

@krvstkvlt As for the YouTuber "just wanting to show off":
that's a negative view. Suppose we imagine he's just a very enthusiastic person, that is VERY happy with his game, and simply wants to share the joy he's experiencing with it?

I like that idea a whole lot more than always thinking the worst of people first...

When will people learn not to do this. Similar things happen when people get Pokemon early and start posting. The Nintendo/Game Freak police are all over it. If you get it early, just count your blessings, don't post and just enjoy the game, it's not hard people.

@ThanosReXXX @Bobby_earl I do think the retailer is at fault for selling the game, but not for getting the guy banned. Two seperate issues in my opinion. So to answer your question: yes, the retailer should be punished (by a fine or something).

The YouTuber can't be hiding behind the 'it shouldn't been sold to me' logic though. Just stay offline, play the game, don't try to be a show off or deal with the consequences.

To keep with the BMW car example: The BMW dealer should get a fine for selling a car pre-release but can't be blamed for the stupid thing the driver does with it.

EDIT to react to your last reply: I admit I shouldn't assume he's a show off. I take back those words. BUT... he still should know it isn't smart to stream an unreleased product.

Didn't Nintendo permanently ban 3DS systems that went online with Pokémon Sun & Moon before release? They're very strict about this sort of thing.

@rjejr Aha, interesting to know. But at least there, they DO have a system that doesn't allow for them to sell copies earlier than supposed to, so that couldn't have happened in the same way.

P.S.

You saw an article on making your own hologram, and that made you think of me? That sure got me puzzled...

@Nintendoforlife They’ve been in this situation many times before. They clearly need a hard look at how they go about it in future.

@krvstkvlt The YouTuber isn't saying that himself, so he isn't hiding behind that reasoning. It was me and others who simply connected those dots, since that is the logical thing to do if you use deductive reasoning.

And I never said that the retailer should be punished for the posted videos: that's indeed out of his hands, but what I actually DID say, is that by means of Nintendo apparently screwing up for not instructing the retailer, the retailer was able to sell the game early, and thus it became possible for the YouTuber to play and stream the game.

Were it not for the steps preceding his purchase, that could NEVER have happened. Cause and effect, my friend. Cause and effect...

Can't only blame one person for that. That's actually INjustice...

@argol228 "he has the game illegitimately"

In what courtroom or classroom does it make sense that a game purchased with legal money at a legal retail business is an illegitimate purchase? You can't hold the customer responsible b/c they may not even know, ya know? Have you ever been in a store and bought something when you didn't know what the "street date" was? Can you honestly look around at everything you own, clothes, furniture, technology, and be 100% certain you've have never purchased something before the street date?

I mean what the heck even is a "Street date" anyway? Sounds like one of those things big corporations make up on the spot to have power and control but it has no basis in reality. Is there even a law against breaking a street date or is it simply a contractual matter between retailers and sellers? And if it's a contractual matter between retailers and sellers then it doesn't affect the consumer. I bet nobody ever in the history of the universe has gone to jail for purcahsing an item before the street date b/c their has been and neve rwill be a law against purchasing an item before the street date. Therefore it is a legal purchase. It may not be a contractual sale, but the sale is between the supplier - Nintnedo - and the retailer. Legal sale isn't the same as legal purchase. Nobody is ever going to jail for buying something before the "street date". Purchase is legal and legitimate, it counts. What legal action Ntinedo may want to take against the seller for breaking a contract between them, well that's between them, but you can't blame the customer. No way. No how. You can't legally expect every person who buys every item ever to know the street date, we buy too many things. Pants, clock, comic book, record, video game. Buy, buy, buy.

Maybe putting it on YT is against some fine print agreement in the TOS with Ntinedo, but that doesn't make the purchase not legitimate. Real money + real store + real merchandise = real purchase.

sorry so long

@Kalmaro What are you talking about it. If you don't want to watch it... then don't watch it.

@rjejr Hear, hear...

@rjejr There could be aspects of the game not yet discussed or revealed that Nintendo would like for gamers to experience on their own. My assumption.

@ThanosReXXX Ah right, now I understand your way of thinking. Took a bit.

But do you think Nintendo didn't instruct retailers to NOT sell before the actual releasedate? I think the retailer just didn't give a flying f. 'A sale is a sale' mentality.

@Paddle1 True. They banned 3DS consoles that went online with Sun & Moon before the official release date. It were only a few apparently, but those had the same culprit, retailers handing out their copies too early.

So just to be safe, if you get a game early try to put your 3DS/Switch in plane mode or just wait.

I understand spoiler but what's wrong with being first? If someone is the first to get an early legitimate copy (remember he didn't pirate the game) of a particular game and that person enjoys it very much and he show it to the world to interested people like me. You know what I think if I saw that, I think I too would want to buy that game cause then I know maybe just maybe I may enjoy it as well. If it was a freaking movie I may say this is punishable since those contain 100% spoilers but an early stream of a game yet to be release and the guy is being punish for having fun with it? C'mon Nintendo you're shooting yourself in the foot and to all those who side with Nintendo on this, you guys deserve to be hit the same too cause you know nothing.

@rjejr Ahhh I hadn't thought about that aspect before. I have to say it seems a bit odd that a retailer would completely disregard the release date set by the company though. You would think policies would be in place to prevent that.

@ThanosReXXX Again, how do you know that Nintendo didn't tell the retailer? Do you have any proof? If you don't, you should stop spreading this unverified information.

@Kalmaro But you can choose not to watch his stream?

@RupeeClock Hmm let me give a try, you can unlock Luigi as a playable character?

@MrGamerClock64 In what way?

@krvstkvlt Could be either. Not every Nintendo rep is as strict/good as the next one, happens in every company. If they're long time business partners, these kind of things are sometimes not even spoken out anymore, they just ASSUME the retailer will know.

The truth of the current matter is that we, the spectators, simply don't know whether or not the Nintendo rep told him, and if the retailer, however slim that chance is, honestly wasn't aware of the official street date.

And the option you offered could also be possible, but it is definitely the retailer shooting himself in the foot, because in that case, he'll probably know full-well what the consequences are going to be.

@rjejr I want to know in what country you can plead ignorance to a law or rule you broke without knowing and that makes it ok.

"Oh, I didn't know it was against to do 55 in this zone. Therefore I'm off the hook".

I was on the most recent YouTube video that the official Nintendo YouTube channel posted. I believe it was titled a "CAPtivating Adventure". Anyway, the comments were filled with people complaining about "spoiler thumbnails" in the "related videos" next to that video they were watching. I happened to see one as well. It's like people are going out of their way to either ruin or just show off that they beat the game before anyone else can even get it yet. Lame

@rjejr I'm not.certain what's being argued here. Are you saying if a retailer agrees to Nintendo's terms to sell their product, only to break that agreement, its no big deal? If there's a contract that something is to be done at a specific date and time, that agreement should be upheld. This happened on a radio station recently where the DJ jumped the gun and played a world premiere song ahead of the time scheduled by the record company. He went on air and acknowledged that what he did was wrong and wouldn't have been surprised if it led to an issue of trust between the label and his station. My point being if Nintendo has an idea of how they want their launch to go and you agree to their terms, only to breach it, they deserved to be at least put on notice.

As for the kid streaming, I agree he simply bought a game in a (manner of speaking) legal manner on his end. However, there has to be some level of responsibility on his part to know that maybe I shouldn't push my luck in broadcasting that I got a copy of the game early.

@NinNin We're all just theorizing here, and looking at why it should just be the YouTuber that is to blame, while it is pretty damn clear that it simply shouldn't have been possible for him to get his hands on the game in the first place.

This is simply a discussion point, and so we are discussing it, including all of our own varying views and opinions on the matter, which (last time I checked) we're all allowed to have. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't agree with me, that's perfectly fine.

But if you can't grasp or respect what theorizing means, perhaps you should leave well enough alone. I don't like people accusing me of "spreading unverified information" when all me and the other members are doing is sharing/discussing our views on a specific topic.

Is game streaming covered by copyright's fair use? If it isn't then, any publisher could force those videos off youtube (or other video site) since, it's clearly their IP they are streaming...

As for me, I rather read a spoiler free review, or just the score itself. After all, the joy of discovering things is one of the fun in a Mario game. I get back to walkthroughs on my second playthrough and find what I'd miss...

@NinNin
The retailer pays a fee so they won't get sued by Nintendo. Then they won't be receiving new Nintendo stuffs by launch day. Knowing how the Switch and related accessories sells like hotcakes, the retailer will lose potential profit.

I actually don't really care about the spoilers, but more about this cynical race to be the first to reveal something. If putting out better content than your "competitors" is too hard for you and you feel the need to cheat the line, maybe you deserve that ban.

@ThanosReXXX Conclusion: we can't know. Haha.

(P.S. I enjoy this civil conversation, that's not always a given on the internet, greetings a fellow dutchman)

Folks blaming the streamer didn't read the article.

@ThanosReXXX "Nintendo was at fault for (apparently) not restricting the retailer and telling him/her that the game is not supposed to be sold before Friday"
This isn't theorizing. It's jumping to conclusions and baselessly accusing Nintendo. You should stop doing that.

@MrGamerClock64 Thanks for the information.

I’ve only watched the trailers Nintendo has released and I’m not about to be spoiled a day or two before I’m playing the game.

@krvstkvlt You're welcome.

P.S.

I'm an American, but I live in Amsterdam. I can understand people thinking I'm Dutch, though. Looking at my profile...

@rjejr
I perhaps shouldn't have used "illegitimate" but my point stands. and to further the point. Nintendo has all right to pull video content. While this is a big point of contention for a lot of youtubers in regards to Nintendo's stance on youtube. (That is a whole other can of worms.)

As the game is not officially released, fair use does not apply in terms of footage distribution if the property is unreleased. if this was a court case. the prosecutor would probably use that as their key point. Unreleased implies the legal permissions are not in effect.

@NinNin The term "(apparently)" denoted that it was theorizing, and it is an option that simply comes to mind if you don't want to instantly accuse the retailer.

So, IF the retailer wasn't warned off by Nintendo officials, he MIGHT have found no objections in selling the game to a customer. Or, of course he did know, and sold it anyway.

No matter what the actual truth, that definitely IS theorizing, so I suppose I can hereby conclude that you are unable to grasp the concept. Duly noted for future reference...

Oh, and a tip from a long time member to you newbie: don't tell other people to stop doing stuff. That's what the admins are for. Everybody on here is allowed their own opinion, reasoning or views.

As I said before: if you don't agree with me (or anyone else, for that matter), then that's perfectly fine. You have the same right to your own views or opinions, but don't go telling people that they shouldn't be expressing theirs, that's just wrong.

Doesn't seem like too harsh of a punishment. He just loses the ability to access his account for 3 months, not like Nintendo can do much more than that. Though he didn't break the law, Nintendo doesn't have to put up with that. No spoilers!

His videos taken down was justifiable in my eyes. Spoilers suck. As for the 3 month ban? Sweet sweet karma biting him in the rear.

@ThanosReXXX
As someone that worked in retail. the shipments come with big "DO NOT SELL BEFORE" I don't know the upper management side of things but based on knowing how retail generally works and basic common sense and logic. legal documents and agreements are signed for the selling of products.

I guess Nintendo taking action against spoilers explain why youtube managed to recommand me videos like "Odyssey Final Boss" and such only for a day before they (luckily) disappered...even if sadly the videos' thumbnails already ruined some surprises...

Honestly never been happier that Nintendo is being overly protective since I hate spoilers, too bad I can't get the game at launch and they probably can't stop the videos after the 27th ^_^;;;

(On a side note, I really hope there won't be some heavy spoilering guides and articles here on NintendoLife, I know they get extra clicks for the site, but I don't want to have to avoid this place for the next 2-3 months ;w; ).

LOL!

This is absolutely no problem. I'm not stupid enough to spoil me this game just two days before its release. No one in their right mind would do that.

It's weird that Nintendo tries to shield these fools from their mistake, but honestly, people watching spoilers do not deserve any better.

My reaction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIgfiSzCy1o

@TommyTLG Or they could not stream it and not clutter up YouTube with streams that shouldn't be there.

@ThanosReXXX Putting "apparently" in your sentence doesn't make it clear that you're theorizing something. I didn't say that you shouldn't express your opinions. I said that you should stop spreading unverified information.

It seems to me that you don't know how to express yourself clearly when you want to speculate stuff. You don't start by saying that someone is/was at fault when it's just your speculation. In the future, try using "Maybe," "I believe," "I guess," "I think," "It's possible that," etc. Also, when you speculate, you should have some evidence or sound reasons to support your theory. Apparently, you have none. I wouldn't call it a speculation. It's an uneducated guess at best.

As for the moderation part, I just gave you a suggestion. You don't need to comply. It's not wrong for a member to gave suggestions to other members. Anyway, it's funny that you don't want others to suggest things to you, but you told me to not suggest things to others. Do you realize that that is also a suggestion? That's hypocritical.

How do you watch an hour of someone's stream and call them the spoiler, how did they show something you couldn't not see

It's youtube's right to pull the videos if they wanna pull the videos - but ban him for 3 months? They must have assumed he got a review copy and broke the early preview embargo or whatever.

I mean not everyone knows official dates and rules and stuff. Some people just buy stuff when they get a notification there order is in.

@Swaz Yes, but then we have those who do watch it, and start spreading info online.

@AlexOlney Would still be more fun that SM Sunshine!

@Kalmaro At the same time, they could just not watch it. I've yet to see any spoilers listed

The youtuber was prolly Narancia messing around with his Aerosmith.

Also I don't think you're technically supposed to live stream any Nintendo games, anymore. Those in the partner programs aren't allowed to, and if you're not in a partner program, you can get flagged just for posting Nintendo content.

Is all ufkced up, because IMO, in the years between the failed launch of the WiiU and the launch of the Switch, all the retrospective Nintendo love, play-thrus, let's plays and reviews by youtubers, saved Nintendo by reigniting enough interest in the brand, that once Nintendo had a compelling console idea again, the public was hungry.

That Youtuber asked for it. It should be a 6 month ban instead of a 3 month.

@BLP_Software Actually our law kind of works like that in the UK.

If a road is designated as a 40 mph road but the signage is poor or covered up (e.g. by overgrown hedges) and you kind of know it's probably a 40 mph zone but it looks safe to you to drive at 50 mph then you've got a good chance of getting off if you get caught going faster than 40 mph.

Infact driving is a good case study more generally. "Speed limits" are actually not always "laws" - they're detailed practical guidance. The law might say "all drivers must drive at a responsible speed" - that could be any speed really...

...except when you take your driving test you effectively sign a contract acknowledging that you agree that the local authority set speed limits are reflective of the "responsible speed" for a given road.

Our "laws" are remarkably broad and flexible really.

@TheLZdragon Have you considered that those who don't care about spoilers will watch the stream, and then those people could then start spreading information themselves.

Sheesh, just WAIT people! You don't have to do these things!

i thought everybody knew that luigi is the real villain this time and you can unlock a HD version of Mario sunshine after the first 100 moons...................jk

Nintendo's ninjas are alwasys fast and effective. Beware streamers

@BLP_Software

Most would say it qualifies as fair use. Those terms are really meant to prevent someone from loading their entire movie collection to youtube, not to prevent a video game playthrough. Almost nobody who does playthroughs gets written authorizations from the game producer.

Hey, at least he also didn’t go missing...it is China

I hope YouTube takes actions against Nintendo. Can't stand them [removed] with Creators and now even getting a Guy banned.

_{@Dan_Dan Mind your language - Octane}

@argol228 All I can add to that, from my own experience (20 years in sales & marketing, having dealt with literally hundreds of partners/retailers) is that obviously, there are always rules, but the way they are applied/adhered to varies from business to business.

And all the options I suggested in an earlier comments are also possible/applicable. On top of that, we can't simply assume that the Asian market works EXACTLY the same as the Western market, let alone if this was a small retailer/game shop or a part of a larger chain.

In any case, my main point was that not all fingers should be pointed at the YouTuber, since the entire situation is a bit more complicated/nuanced, but people are so quick to judge nowadays, especially online. I like to consider/reconsider ALL the options before chopping someone's neck off...

A lot of people here are very black & white with their verdicts, but there's also quite a few shades of grey. Fifty, if I remember correctly...

@Dang69 You can stream Nintendo games. You just can't monetize your streams.

@Dan_Dan Nintendo can't ban YouTube users. Only YouTube can.

@NinNin It is, but the difference between you telling me to stop "spreading misinformation" (which I wasn't doing in the first place) and me telling you not to tell me to do that, is that the latter is stems from common decency. It didn't come across as a suggestion at all, so maybe you should reconsider your OWN wording in the future.

And theorizing is NOT the same as speculating, so I don't NEED facts to support a theory in which I propose possible OPTIONS. I never said that one is more likely than the other, and the main purpose was to shift/change the point blank blaming of the YouTuber to other possible scenarios and reasons why there's more than one guilty party in this story.

Nothing wrong with that, and nothing untrue or unverified, since it's only theories, in other words, the infamous "what if" scenario.

And besides that, I also detest people mindlessly defending Nintendo. They aren't faultless, not by a long shot.

The YouTube part is clear, and is just a general rule, which has nothing to do with the Nintendo related material, so that cannot be disputed, but the roles of Nintendo and even more so: the retailer, can DEFINITELY be questioned.

And THAT is what I, or rather we, were theorizing about. Funny that you should only focus on me, when there are more that don't agree with the whole "hang the YouTuber" sentiment...

Wow! By now ppl should fear Nintendo police. They are like ninjas.

@ThanosReXXX I don't like people who spread misinformation or spread unverified information as facts. You can replace Nintendo with Sony or Microsoft or Google or Facebook or NintendoLife or any company, and my response will be the same.

I don't single you out. I don't have time to read every single comment. I read some comments and reply when I want to. By the way, this whole thing is simply a misunderstanding. When I asked you for a second time, I was slightly annoyed because it seemed that you ignored my question. Anyway, now it's clear that it's only a theory of yours, so let's move on.

@NinNin Yeah, I saw that first comment of yours only much later, so I initially missed it. I had around 16 replies in my inbox, so yours kind of got lost in the mix.

EDIT: Actually, at first I was a bit annoyed as well, because I didn't know what the hell was going on with the whole "Again" in what I initially thought was your first comment to me... Oh, well...

Well, good to see that you're at least capable/willing to seek a compromise, I can appreciate that, so by all means: let's move on indeed.

Good.

@Kalmaro Same here, I hate spoilers and so I have avoided most gameplay videos thus far. That wasn't the case for me last year were I saw Paper Mario for Wii U was streaming on Youtube. It wasn't fault of the Youtuber as he simply preordered the digital version and wanted some fame. The game wasn't stolen and those not wanting to watch could choose not to. Before the video I had zero interest in picking up the game but after watching him play for an hour I decided I needed to grab it and bought it at launch. Previous short Treehouse footage hadn't had the same impact on me as his footage had.

I can see if he was under some nondisclosure agreement but the fault was of the retailer who should be punished. But what harm does an hour of footage do? I won't watch it as I want to play it firsthand but maybe someone not interested could have their interest piqued like I had mine with Paper Mario.

All streaming is on the good faith of the companies anyway as you're essentially exposing the entirety of a product that isn't yours to do so with. It's basic copyright stuff, and most streamers don't have any more legs to stand on than the kindness of the people who make the games.
Also it's a suspension, not a ban. They are different, and the headline should be updated.

@Nico07 I think you have a valid point! My problem stems mostly from the fact that some spoilers can come just from thumbnails alone on YouTube.
Then there's the fact that the game isn't even out yet
And the fact that even if someone does not watch, other people will and then they'll start spreading information they should not even have.

@Dev he is in a cell though. that thumbnail is from super mario sunshine after he was taken in right after the tutorial.

@Kalmaro
I totally agree with you. Spoilers are the worst. I mean if he was streaming it live then whatever as long as I don't click the video then all is well so spoilers are easily avoidable but I don't think it's right for him to stream it. Just enjoy the game early and wait a few more days

@yeayeanaynay They admitted to being paid off?

A buyer is not bound to any sort of NDA to Nintendo. He buys the game so he owns it.
He is free to share anywhere anytime the gameplay.
Youtube could be sued by this user.

@NinNin You're still partially wrong. You absolutely cannot YouTube Live stream from the YT account partnered with the Nintendo Creators Program, even IF that particular live stream is not monetized. If that youtuber has another account for live streams, they could stream it there, but any revenue would then go to Nintendo 100 percent, and or it could get flagged midstream and cut out (sometimes happens to the people in the Partner program on accident anyway). The rule is something like, you can use Nintendo content, as long as commentary is being applied in something like a Let's Play, but the revenue goes to Nintendo 100 percent unless you are partnered. I don't think that's rule is any looser on analysis/critical/review videos of Nintendo stuff, either, which is bulsliht in that case, as all of that randomly gets flagged thru algorithm crap, even on Nintendo Creator Program partners. There's a good NVC podcast with The Completionist/Jihard on this too.

@macaron75 I don't know about suing - when we agree to terms with Youtube in even creating a basic user account, I'm pretty sure they have free reign to pull whatever videos they want. BUT I do wonder if, even inside those clauses, if you sign up with a company like YT, and they betray the rules of their own "causes for banning", specifically, if there is some sort of law breaking going on. Especially if this person's channel is a source of revenue, then maybe there's a case of "you just laid me off of my job without proper justification", sort of thing?

@Dang69 "You absolutely cannot YouTube Live stream from the YT account partnered with the Nintendo Creators Program, even IF that particular live stream is not monetized."

If a channel is registered with the Nintendo Creators Program, doesn't that mean all content in that channel is monetized or do I misunderstand this? What is the point in registering your channel with the Nintendo Creators Program if you don't monetize your content?

@NinNin The pointof the program is Nintendo will share ad revenue with you on stuff featuring their content, instead of outright getting ALL of your generated revenue from the video. The option could have potentially existed for a user to say, "I really wanna stream this game and chat with people, I'll demonetize the stream and have all the revenue go to Nintendo." Nintendo still doesn't want that to happen as it supplements the purchasing of the game. And even if a Youtuber demonetized the live stream, let all revenue go to Nintendo, the Youtuber could still potentially profit off the game stream by leading people to their channel (maybe it's a brand new hot release) and subsequently to their other monetized channel videos.

@BLP_Software You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content.

The game isnt meant to be publicly available yet. The content isnt even meant to be out. Just because he bought the game does not mean he has consent. He doesnt have their consent to have it thos early and stream it. He did break Youtube TOS.

So if I bought myself a bucket of specialty chicken wings that hasn't been widely available yet, I can't film myself eating them specialty chicken wings until I get the thumbs up from the damn chef? A guy needs to eat too ya know just like a guy can play his own legit game he bought with his own good money.

@Dang69 Then I suppose what I said is accurate. You can stream Nintendo games, but you can't monetize your streams. You can't stream Nintendo games on a channel that is registered with the Nintendo Creators Program because all content on that channel is monetized.

@Dev Is that from Super Mario Sunshine?

Don't break street date! Seriously it's 2017 people should understand this!

@NinNin Yes but a partnered user, whose channel participates in the program CAN have streams NOT be monetized if they so choose. It isn't because "all their content is monetized", it is a notable difference than saying all their videos or their whole channel is in a monetization share. In the program you can choose which videos are submitted for sharing with Nintendo, or if your whole channel is. Which I'm curious if that 70% of your content has to be Nintendo, if your channel is partnered. Cuz that's the money share for a channel share. And funnily enough, I've heard you tubers outright state, "yeah my channel is about 70-80 percent Nintendo content. That actually feels icky now. Fans become bigger faker vampire content creator fans and Nintendo drumming up contrived hype. Yeah that always existed but, felt this so much more strongly on Youtube the past year, on content across the board, beyond games. Feels like "worse than tv".

I don’t think this was really about preventing spoilers as it was about streaming the game and one that it isn’t released yet to add salt to the injury...
The youtuber was looking to get attention (and some revenue in the process, I’m totally sure) and I’m also sure he was aware of the risks he or she was taking in doing so.
Nintendo might’ve been harsh or maybe not, but the company was protecting its property which is something I agree with.
Honestly I really dislike people that ignore the rules (either written or implied) just to get some attention to themselves.

@ThanosReXXX "You saw an article on making your own hologram, and that made you think of me? That sure got me puzzled..."

We spent some time discussing Hololens and the like back in the days of NX, probably a summer or 2 ago.

@ThanosReXXX Hear, hear...

Glad you predicate it, went out for a bit, came back to way too many emails. I read yours, but I'm leaving the rest until tomorrow.

@rjejr Ah, okay. Points for a good memory. Recent private events have kinda messed with my mind a bit here and there, so I had a bit of trouble seeing the relation between myself and holograms...

Also, a bit of hat tipping goes to your new temporary avatar. Nice tribute. Are you going to change it to Fats now, or are you no fan of that kind of music?

He deserved it - if he gets the game before release date, cool, play it and enjoy it but don't ruin it for everyone else!
If you are being an attention seeker by ruining everybody's experience, you don't get to complaint.

Specially since so many people are trying to stay unspoiled and all this stuff is just appearing on Youtube.

@Dang69 Thanks for the information. Regarding registering your channel with the Nintendo Creators Program, I heard that you will share the revenues of all your videos (not just videos with Nintendo-related content) with Nintendo. I don't know if that's true, though.

@JJ286 Youtube is the one that did the banning, nintendo was only removing videos that he had no legal permission to distribute as the game is unreleased and with it, Creative Commons are not applicable

@rjejr I agree. It discourages me from buying Nintendo to hear this heavy handed bit; let's not forget the fact they nickle and dime let's players to the point where they refuse Nintendo games. YouTube is full of bs too. Not sure what the current policies are, but it is tough to regain faith in bad policies. I'll still check nindies but I could easily play a hack like hyper Metroid which has fast bullets and better controls. Rather than buy Metroid 2, need the amino for hard mode and ignore the fan game they shut down; why should I inconvenience myself?

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

@MegaTen Well, thank you.
I was a bit off on the whole YouTube bit in the beginning, but luckily, a couple of other smart guys enlightened me on that part...

I didn’t watch it willingly. It appeared on my feed because I had watched some other Mario videos - the trailers.
I cut it off, but it’s annoying that I’m basically cutting YouTube off until after Odyssey releases.

@Kalmaro I agree Youtubers can be very checky with spoilers in their video thumbnails. And having everyone around you talking about an unreleased game can be just as annoying as talk of a movie you intend to still see.

@yeayeanaynay I could speculate why there is only one but... That's it. None of us can say for sure.

@MisterKorman like Luna said, the videos start popping up in your feeds, and people like to put spoilers in thumbnails all the time. Then there's the fact that you are spreading spoilers, so it gets even harder for people who don't want to be spoiled to avoid it.

So you can be affected even if you don't watch the video.

Definitely a little too harsh. But one should no not to go down the road until the games release.

How about this...if those people can have the game early...THEN WHY NOT JUST RELEASE TO EVERYONE THE SAME DAY!!?! Not just for lucky people to spoil it!

Seems pretty harsh to just ban a guy for streaming a game he got legitimately. If there's a problem, then that problem lies with the retailer.

The only game I ever pre-ordered (because I was afraid it was going to be in very short supply in Europe) was the first Dark Souls, and I received my copy two days early. That wasn't my fault, the game just arrived in the mail. Why wouldn't I be allowed to stream the game at that point? People who want spoilers can watch, people who don't can decide not to watch. Two days layer the internet was overflowing with Souls spoilers anyway.

I'm a patient gamer and usually play games years after they've been released (this year I've completed quite a few games from the 80's, 90's and 00's). I don't think I've ever spoiled a game for myself. If you get spoiled by watching thumbnails in your Youtube feed, you should probably stop subscribing to clickbait youtubers.

I do not agree with this.

No one has proven in a court of law that Nintendo is even legally entitled to impose some of these particular terms & conditions on people who have actually paid to own whatever game/product, and it's a very dangerous slope if we let one corporation arbitrarily enforce some other corporation's "laws" upon us in some indirect manor.

At the very least, someone should legally challenge this to see if both YouTube and Nintendo are actually abusing basic consumer rights to use the product they have paid for and own as they see fit (which, within reason--and this example REALLY IS within reason--should be their basic consumer right) otherwise the notion of "ownership" is ultimately just an insidious lie. . . .

Unless it's ACTUALLY illegal to stream non-interactive gameplay of an otherwise fully interactive videogame, which has NEVER been proven one way or another in a court of law (and NO, this is NOT the same as streaming a movie, or uploading music, or copying and printing books online, because videogame are more than just something you look at, listen to, or read for the full experience), then neither Nintendo nor YouTube should be dictating the "law" to us in this regard--and we certainly should not be just ignorantly accepting this particular "status quo" either.

@MisterKorman I see your point. Have you considered though that, by streaming content, this person enabled others to the post spoilers they saw in other sites? A ripple effect of sorts. Under this view, it's less about what they did and more about how they can start a chain of events.

@rjejr Nintendo has every right to do this-it’s unreleased-and c’mon? What’s there to spoil? Everything!

@MisterKorman Yeah, I appreciate you giving it some thought. If there was some way that people would, like, agree to see spoilers but not reveal them... I'd cease to have any problems instantly.

@ThanosReXXX I woudlnt 'change it for Fats, good music, but I really don't ever think about him. I saw Petty in concert opening for Dylan in like '90, and American Girl is 1 of my favorite songs. But the crazy thing is I heard about his death from a heart attack just after getting out of my cardiologist, I think I was on my way to Target to pick up my new heart medicine, making an appointment for an angiogram/angioplasty b/c he made it sound like I was going to die of a heart attack. Petty is 10 years older than me, but he seemed pretty young to go out that way.

I considered changing it for Benson, liked him in Soap and Sportsnight, but the moment passed.

BTW I'm ok now, my cardiologist is a hipster paying off his student loans, I have to get an MRI but I'm not worrying about it any more. Petty is a reminder you never know though.

Maybe if Nintnedo gets another beautiful Japanese woman to make a SMO commercial I'll change it to her, I had this Aya Ueto pic for awhile when that game released. So happy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axk5SQjbZ5k

@BLP_Software "I want to know in what country you can plead ignorance to a law or rule you broke without knowing and that makes it ok."

Are you saying "street date" is a law? I'm saying the guy didn't make an illegal purchase b/c it isn't illegal to buy something before some arbitrary street date that only exists in a contract between the retailor and the distributor. Consumers aren't involved in that contract, they didn't sign it, therefore it can't be applied to them. There simply is no law barring consumers from buying something before a street date. That's why consumers dont' know about street dates, they don't have to, it doesn't apply to them.

People can only break laws that exists, purchasing something before the street date isn't a law. You tell me in what country street date is a law against a purchase. Best you'll find is a civil contract about the selling, not the purchase.

Here's a Google search to get you started. Good luck finding something that doesn't exist.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=YgHyWYeTJYGUjwT9v4P4Ag&q=is+breaking+street+date+illegal%3F&oq=is+it+illegal+to+purcahse+somethign+before+a+street+date&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0i71k1l4.0.0.0.7479.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.VWOuOnwQIvg

Afaik there is no legal precedent for copyright and streaming video games right? I think we really need one. I still believe that playing and watching a game are two very different things.

@Tasuki Yeah, I think that should probably have happened, or maybe that is still going to happen as well. I don't think the YouTuber is the only one that's going to feel this...

@rjejr Yeah, those Asian girls can look pretty damn attractive. Those squealing voices, though...

Good to hear you're okay. At our age, you never know what pains and illnesses come next. It's almost like crossing off a bucket list, except one that you actually survive...

Since there are no real laws around this kind of thing yet, it is on you as the consumer whether you want to risk doing something like this. The internet is still the wild west as far as laws go and when you enter that landscape and do things millions of people can access you are most certainly going to get [removed] on at some point by someone.

_{@Jokerwolf Mind your language - Octane}

@Tasuki That's a poor analogy. A good analogy would be you did that and then broadcast to the world to let people know what you did.

@rjejr It was an analogy.

Thumbs up for the profile pic.
Thumbs down for the constant gravedancing whenever something like this happens.

Makes about as much sense as banning streamers that played Super Mario World prior to the SNES Classic release.

@Tasuki Because you didn't live stream it on YouTube. If this person just had let his friends know, he wouldn't have been banned on YouTube. Also, even if you did that, you wouldn't be able to prove that a store sold it to you when they weren't supposed to.

@rjejr What do you mean, 'what spoilers?'

Clearly your reasons for playing an exploratory video game are different from most people's!

@Tasuki Two reasons why your analogy is poor: first, sharing it with your friends at your home and sharing it to the world by posting a video on one of most popular websites in the world are entirely different, and second, if you live stream a game that's not released yet, people will know immediately that you probably got it from a store that broke the agreement or illegally got it, but if you let others know that you bought a bottle of beer when you weren't supposed to, it won't be clear to them if you told them the truth.

Let me tell you a better analogy: it's like a movie company planned to share its movie on its channel and its affiliate channels on YouTube on October 27th, 2017, then before that date someone bought the video of that movie from an employee of that company and posted it on his YouTube channel. What action do you think the movie company will take?