jsty3105

@Chocobo_Shepherd hah! Thanks - I've written some tech magazine cover articles on a freelance basis in the past and generally do a lot of writing so have some standards that I follow

@Chocobo_Shepherd I actually wish that the NL writer of this post would include some technical information to help readers who may be unfamiliar with some of the concepts/terms in the article.

For example, that cover songs on the likes of YouTube, Spotify, etc have needed licensing since forever. ESPECIALLY when said cover songs are being monetised.

Also, a "compulsory license" doesn't mean that the license itself is compulsory. It means the rights holder can't stop you from releasing your cover song if you get that license. Which is a pretty important distinction here. Looking at the costs involved from a few sites - it's seems very small for an artist like Synamax who is already earning money from both his music and his cover songs, including the ones that were earning money before they were taken down.

I don't understand why he doesn't just pay the license fees (and don't understand why he doesn't share whether it was a specific number that was quoted by Nintendo's lawyers).

@YANDMAN sigh - Ctrl-F "Wexter" to get better context

@mikegamer it's puzzling why known convicted criminals are being put on golden pedestals. Crime definitely does pay it seems

@Wexter I find it funny too - if only because I thought there was enough people who either hated or liked Nintendo that would have experience of these things.

Looking through the comments on YouTube, here, and Kotaku, it's clear how few people actually know stuff that's frankly basic for any musician.

Having said that, I know it more closely because I've done lots of prior research as someone who's wanted to record cover songs.

Perhaps I should start making money from redistributing other people's work like this guy. Would be nice to be a hero

@Moonborne Not totally true - Both have famously taken down fangames. Sega have a much more relaxed attitude now but still reserve the right to take action, "We never give explicit permission to use our intellectual property. We reserve the right to take necessary actions when our properties are used inappropriately, maligned or distributed for profit."

Just a year or so ago, Capcom issued a takedown for Rockman EXE Phantom of Network Remake, SHNecro and taken down skin mods.

In the large majority of Nintendo's takedown cases, some form of profit was involved (particularly in the case where hundreds of fan games were taken down at once because the site was directly profiting from hosting the games due to the 'advertising banners displayed on the site and advertisements played while users wait for the games to load'.

Personally, I wish Nintendo took a more collaborative stance on a case-by-case basis with fangames instead of relying on the somewhat classical method of needing someone to pitch a business idea to them.

@mikegamer People need to stop white knighting those who are out to make easy money using someone else's work/property , particularly blatant ones like those in the article.

@Moonborne unfortunately - music licensing is a beast.

Fan passion is one thing but it's pretty basic stuff that you need a license to distribute cover songs on YouTube

This isn't just a Nintendo thing. It's a music industry thing. I don't like it either as I personally feel cover songs from budding artists should get more leeway.

@Maximumbeans Getting a license when you're distributing cover songs on YouTube is basic stuff in the music industry. Some companies / artists might overlook some things - Nintendo didn't. Also, notably, Smooth McGroove has hundreds of thousands to millions more views than Synamax does (Even though Synamax is very talented as well) and has Nintendo cover songs in his channel with millions of views and they aren't taken down by Nintendo.

Smooth McGroove does the 'right' thing by sorting out licensing etc - "As most YouTube artists rely on ad revenue for a living, do you have concerns about the way Content ID claims are being handled? What impact has this had?

Content ID concerns everyone that does music or gaming on YouTube. I happen to do both, so I definitely have concerns about this. It's made me seek out licensing and other protections for my work, which I've had success with so far."

Here's an example of other companies / artists that didn't overlook things on another platform
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/06/09/twitch-music-cover-songs-dmca/

Basically, don't pay license fees = risk getting your cover taken down.

@devlind - No. It specifically targeted his cover songs (because he monetised them and did it without a license). His other Metroid Prime-related videos are still up.

@-wc- I think the key information missing here (and Synamax hasn't given any details about it) is - How much was the fee for the compulsory licenses for his covers?

We also know that we have a very different story if he paid the license fee because all the covers would still be up on YouTube

@-wc- Honestly, it's really hard to tell thanks to YouTube changing their policy to allow ads on any video. It's reasonable to trust his word saying that he's happy not to make any money from the videos BUT, he also said 'he would have had no issue with Nintendo simply issuing a copyright claim on the videos and taking over monetisation for them'

and that strongly implies that they were monetised. He also has a patreon - I'm now entering pure guesswork territory but if he's mostly known for Metroid Prime covers then it stands to reason that most people are donating based on those covers, which by extension means that he's making money from Nintendo cover songs. It's a bit of a reach admittedly.

@FoxyDude - if he paid/pays the license (like how several other cover artists do), the songs would remain up.

@SteamEngenius Why? Needing to license music for cover songs is basic stuff.

Some get away with it but it's still basic stuff. There's a bunch of YouTube videos and other articles about it like this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_vogAVmKsU

@NintendoWife Sorry, that's still not right. You can't play them publicly without a license nor can you release them without one (well, technically, you can like what this YouTuber did - but it doesn't mean a license fee isn't needed). Why do you think that there's an entire cottage industry around helping artists get licenses (like this site https://support.distrokid.com/hc/en-us/articles/360013648953-Can-I-Upload-Cover-Songs)?

Like you said, when you perform live, the promoter pays license fees (This is the part I don't particularly like because I feel it's a crapshoot whether the proper license holder gets the money - it all goes into a central pool which is then redisrtibuted).

@NintendoWife I'm afraid that's untrue. Cover songs aren't and have never been fair use. Parodies are. Covers aren't.

It's legal to create them but you need a license to distribute them. You also need a license if you're playing cover songs in like a pub or venue but that's usually already paid for by the pub / venue.

@BASEDSAKRI I'm unclear - led zep made a career out of what?

@Punisher67 because they want him to license the music? That's basic in the music industry.

@-wc- yknow, he could have just paid the license fee from the money he made from monetising the cover songs? Then the songs could still remain up?

I also think it'll be REALLY hard to prove that even only one person bought a Nintendo game as a direct result of watching one of his cover songs

@jeresun Something this news maker possibly felt was less important than making the news as the next 'victim' 😏 If he paid the license fee, this story would look slightly different.

Although, I won't rule out a kotaku headline that reads something like,"Nintendo forced me to get a license for my cover songs or they'll be taken down".

@jeresun the answer you seek is just a few posts up from yours. Also, cover songs aren't transformative works (assuming you're thinking about fair use)

(or just Ctrl+F and type Wexter and read through the posts) Pelo88 had a great one roughly 10 posts before yours.

@GameOtaku then they are likely currently 'under the radar' - the song rights owners either don't know or aren't yet choosing to do anything about it.

Even if you give credit, you can't really distribute cover songs (especially for money) without permission. I don't know what it takes to release a song on iTunes though and whether there are other fees involved.

@GameOtaku this should hopefully help clear things up - https://www.openmicuk.co.uk/advice/do-you-need-a-licence-to-do-cover-songs/ The venue has already paid the fee for other artists to perform cover songs. It isn't free.

@jowe_gw too true. Spotify etc have been great for music distribution but far less great for artist remuneration.

So so many news stories of artists getting paid peanuts for a song played millions of times.

@michellelynn0976 😏I actually disagree with the use of the term bootlicker because it tends to shut down constructive discussion. 😊

@iLikeUrAttitude cover songs have never been classed as 'fair use'. The big artists have to get permission and/or pay fees so they can make money from their own cover version.

@StefanN making money from cover songs without permission? that has never been true in the music industry. Some might close an eye but the truth is you need permission if you want to monetise your cover song

@Araquanid no. You got it totally wrong. Covers are not and have never been 'basically parodies'

So predictable that piracy defenders claim others are corporate bootlickers when they get called out on piracy.

Why should he care? There are already several supporters of him here and on other sites

@cyrus_zuo I initially didn't see gunsmoke until I read through that list again.. wooooooooo! and side Arms as well!!!

Pretty tail - chop chop chop

I remember this in the arcade!

@Satan Article was updated to clarify that the estate said no such thing

@Hikingguy I think next generation Nintendo will be different. Frankly, they never had the right infrastructure to allow us to carry our purchases from one console generation to another. They likely wouldn't have marked it as one of the must-have features for a console in the first place (an attitude mirrored by Sony's previous stance against backwards compatibility).

It's one that's obvious to us as consumers, like why shouldn't we be allowed to retain our purchases across console generations?

The Wii U was the start of a proper accounts system and the Switch has taken it further - hopefully, now, the infrastructure is finally is place for us to continue retaining our purchases

@Ham-n-jam Should've replied earlier to this. It sounds generic because all patents are written to be as broad as they can be (within the parameters of the patent!) so that they offer the best levels of protection. Patents that are written in overly precise language usually don't protect against much because it would be relatively simple to make a small tweak to the process or item in an area that isn't covered by the patent.

Heartening to see several level headed replies here from people who've done similar work before instead of the usual snark

@Ham-n-jam they can't do it to just anyone - a legal case would only appear if another company uses the same method

@JoyousCreeper Possibly - filing the patent just protects it from getting copied

@JoyousCreeper to protect their technique from getting copied

@Abes3 Particularly when patents easily costs tens of thousands of dollars or more for larger firms.

@Ocaz Got a link to that interview please? Nobunaga's Ambition II remains my all-time favourite strategy game. To the extent that I finished it at the hardest difficulty at least once with every single daimyo... AND playing both scenarios.... (so it's fair to say I finished the game over 60 times.... )

Electrichead64 😂 Go ahead and think that. I've been doing communications, marketing and branding for a bit longer than a day.

It's a fact that every big company wants their trademarks to be used correctly. Your comments here already show you have no understanding of it and the concept of genericide.

@Kazman2007 Can just change the region in your account - easier for you guys in NA than for us in Europe I think. The US eShop doesn't like many UK-based credit cards

@Mando44646 "Companies actively oppose preservation of their old content - Nintendo is case in point here." - More accurate to say they oppose OTHER people trying to preserve their content. Nintendo do preserve their own stuff (See what they did for Super Mario Maker for example).

This is not to say that Nintendo or others are totally in the right either. Just pointing out that Nintendo and other companies do preserve games - they just don't share that with everyone else.

Preservation =/= accessibility

"...yet there’s an attitude within the industry that old games have little to no value" - primarily among gamers - there is a belief that games should depreciate in value faster than cars and to the point where they should be given away freely.

I love free games, particularly when they are bigger releases, but I don't feel the expectation for price depreciation is particularly helpful for the video games industry.

@Electrichead64 You can't possibly be serious with all this. It's fairly basic marketing 101 stuff.

@Electrichead64 "Truth is having your brand become part of the vocabulary is an honor and a blessing," I kinda get what you mean but losing a trademark is a very serious thing for a business. Intriguingly, you mentioned three and said they were all trade names - one of them is no longer a valid trademark because it's become part of the vocabulary - aspirin

@Tott think only one of the items on your list is a confirmed case of genericization - aspirin. Getting that big is a double-edged sword - simply because your brand is being used to describe products from OTHER brands.

Lose the trademark and it becomes worthless to your brand.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-06-14-sp-590-story.html Rollerblade with a similar sentiment - in 1991. Just one year after Nintendo's own messaging highlighted in this article