Angry Joe complains about paying for copyrighted content...again!

lol

This guy

Nope, don't even try to apologize for Nintendo's ass backwards YouTube policies.

Nintendo is a giant bag of dicks when it comes to YouTube.

Nintendont.

Let me put it this way.

The only people who are fighting against youtubers trying to put out gameplay review content,

are miserable lowlife indie companies desperate to silence criticism for their shit-tier asset flip garbage trains,

and Nintendo.

Elaborate.

I have a business too. I work hard too. I'm a designer. I have to pay for copyright material if I wish to incorporate it in my work or use it as tools.

Why is he a special snowflake that gets to complain about sharing revenue when everyone else in the world abides by the same rules?

People need to stop looking at these career reviewers as their online friends. Angry Joe isnt the little man. Angry Joe is first and foremost, a business. Some apparently see a cool, humble dude getting ***** over by a major corporation. I see two businesses trying to get compensated over work they own.

edit: And no, "99% of other companies let it slide" is not an argument. It's not a right. Thats a previledge.

I'd say the same thing if any other company did this.

@Thunderdrone: Why is Nintendo special in this? How is it no other companies do this, but Nintendo somehow does, and it's okay for them to do so?

Exactly that, as if Nintendo is somehow immune to the potential criticism that comes with a video game review.

Nintendo's copyright claims are bs, he has every right to be pissed off. No other company does this like Nintendo, hell I've seen Ubisoft and EA pay youtubers to talk about their games. This one is especially stupid because 1 2 switch is a game with next to no visual content, there is no excuse to claim the video. This is Nintendo trying to control who talks about them, only if you are a Nintendo fanboy or dont do reviews are they going to let you be. Nobody is allowed to be critical unless you give them money. Its free publicity, this is how the world works now. If nobody talks about your game, nobody will care. Take the free publicity and stop being dicks Nintendo, its in your best interest

Sega/Atlus does this. They are just too small for most to care.

Why are they the only ones? Because most companies probably see it as a way to promote their products or don't care. Doesnt mean its a Youtuber's right to demand it. Means they got lucky.

Its okay for any copyright owner to demand compensation because they own the material being used by others for their own profit. You can even see how he changed his tune of outrage.

They are not fighting it lol

They are asking for shared revenew should you CHOOSE to plaster your videos with their work. Joe could review Nintendo stuff with no footage or just free to use trailer material. He doesnt because it lowers the quality of his monetized work ;)

See where this is going?

They should get real jobs

@Thunderdrone: Sega took down the strikes and Atlus was taking down P5 videos, a game that isnt out here yet. Tell me where I can sign up for their copyright program

Thats a completely different argument. One I partially agree with btw. But its quite the massive f***** leap to go from "its in their best interest" to "they are dicks and Angry Joe has the right to be pissed"... no he doesnt lol.

He has no right to complain that his previledge of dumping copyright material to elevate his business doesn't cover 100% of the gaming landscape. He and others got lucky with how the marketing dinamics work in their favor. A few companies not falling in line doesnt give them the right to demand shit lol

Again. These reviewers are not your internet pals. They are businesses!

Watched the video. Very very obnoxious. Not sure why people are defending Nintendo on this issue.

I think AngryJoe is in Nintendo's blacklist with its way he is being targeted.

Youtubers? If you are successful on Youtube you can rake in the profits, look at Pewdiepie. That dude is a multi-millionaire solely due to Youtube.

Just like a successful Twitch streamer, they can make ridiculous amounts of money.

Lets put it this way. Imagine I become a HUGE youtube career designer. I made a big business off of it.

Imagine I got so huge certain companies stop asking me to pay for something I would otherwise have to, because they hope it increases coverage of their products and helps promotion.

Now imagine Adobe or Shutterstock says "no friendo", want our stuff you gotta pay up. Do I have the right to be pissed? Am I entitled to preferential treatment across the board? How the f*** does that make any sense? lol

How is taking revenue for content used under fair-use source material, that could only possibly serve as free advertising, not fighting against it? Nintendo will make a copyright claim if you so much as post a menu of theirs into a video. They don't do it because it's actually reasonable, holds up in court, or is up to the youtube standards of 99% of all other game companies. They do it because they can control their message by hammering any content creator they don't like with youtube's broken system for DMCA's and taking revenue you don't really deserve. It's an extremely dated and draconian line of thinking.

If there's one thing that Nintendo is majorly suffering from, it's the fact that they refuse to get with the times. Their internet service is garbage, their hardware is dated, and they never make concessions to content creators trying to play their games. They really need the exposure right now more than ever after the cancer that was the Wii U, but they refuse to take it, because they're idiots.

There is a reason I didnt put Nintendo in the title. I'd defend any business that chooses to enforce shared revenue over shared copyrighted material, against the retarded sense of entitlement some of these Youtubers have because they mostly are lucky enough to get a TON of free passes.

Its like real world business rules shouldn't apply because you entertain kids online with game videos lol

@Thunderdrone: He doesn't have a right to feel entitled to use IP. This is true.

Coming off as a dick when you block a reviewer on YouTube who would give the game praise is short-sighted though.

You have a guy who is called Angry Joe who reviews games and a family orientated gaming company. Who is going to hurt more with negative press?

If it falls under fair use, you have an easy case against. I stopped at the "that could only serve as free advertisment" because that has f*** all to do with the validity of claiming the right to do it because others also let me do it.

If there's one thing that Nintendo is majorly suffering from, it's the fact that they refuse to get with the times. Their internet service is garbage, their hardware is dated, and they never make concessions to content creators trying to play their games. They really need the exposure right now more than ever after the cancer that was the Wii U, but they refuse to take it, because they're idiots.

Again just because you think they should, doesnt mean Youtubers have the right to complain they can't do it for free. If Pewdiepie gets big enough, should he feel entitled to be angry he shares his revenew with Youtube? He does bring in millions to the platform so apparently popularity gives you the right to feel like you are exempt from basic business practices.

I'm not sure I follow your example.

Im not sure how anyone can defend Nintendo here. Im not going to cry for the corporation because I am a fan of their work. Im allowed to be critical when Nintendo does something stupid and this is something stupid. Its like if a newspaper wasnt allowed to talk about a company unless they paid them because their name is in the article. Get with the times Nintendo

Why assume they're kids? I would be very surprised if Joe's average viewer age was under 23

Take Kripp for instance (a very famous Twitch streamer who probably averages about 10-20,000 viewers every night) his average viewer age is 27.

find another game company that has a creators program like Nintendo does for me, its a scam

I'm arguing about (and laughing at) some Youtubers' sense of entitlement. Now about how much Nintendo would benefit from giving them free passes.

Man, who knew so many cared so much about Nintendo's marketing strategies? And I'm the apologist

he should just not put up any nintendo content.... if he has a problem then prove that its costing nintendo money.

hit them in their wallet. then nintendo will realize...damn we should take off the policy. Or at worst, they go out of business.

that's all you can do. its like music you cant use real music by metallica for example in your videos without getting claimed.

realize that video games are not an exception and move on.

Nintendo is a mess on so many levels. He isn't wrong by calling their upper management as old farts.

Its kids and teenagers who mostly boost the viewer count of the biggest Gaming Youtubers. Like Pewdiepie. The younger generation that grew up/are growing up with Youtube instead of basic TV.

Phuck Angry Joe. Just another fat bum making money off of other people's work and video taping it. The only thing worse than Angry Joe are the losers who actually default to his bum ass as some sort of definitive opinion on games. Mostly Lemmings who can't afford a PS4 so they're up on YouTube watching that shit like the bums that they are. Lol!

My example is pretty simple. I just tried to apply his logic to my business.

The fact that you didn't follow tells me people seem to percieve these Youtube celebs as above regular businesses. They are not.

??

Now I remember why I don't frequent this forum too often. Users here are ridiculous

Angry Joe could do a review without showing any Nintendo footage. Why doesnt he do it? Nintendo can't copyright claim your own speech.

He knows that using that IP content boosts the quality of his work. Thats why. Its essencial for his current profit intake to maintain those production values. Why not pay for it then? He would not make as much money if he had to.

Simple as that. Two companies looking out for their businesses, with only one of them pretending they have the moral high ground because "OTHERS LET ME DO THIS, NENTENDU".

Someone defend his reasoning. Please tell me how its nothing other than hilariously dumb and detached from reality.

let me rephrase, I dont think the logic follows what is happening. There are fair use laws, if it were really illegal they would sue. They are abusing a broken system

people actually have been copyright claimed for just their speech. Not by Nintendo, but it just shows how broken the system is

Nintendo makes my favorite games, but they are very, VERY stupid. They have no self awareness as a company and sometimes I wonder if they make some decisions to spite the current gaming audience. They also act with a level of greed that is reprehensible for where they are coming from. Do they realize that they are coming off the Wii and Wii U. The former a casual "kiddie" console that completely alienated the dedicated fan base and cemented their position as the outsider looking in, the later their HD debut with a gimmicky tablet that sold like dog shit. Nintendo shouldn't be this fucking arrogant right now, they need to be trying to gain the gamers favor because the casuals ain't fucking coming back.

It might just be Asian culture though. It's like they're cheap but they don't care if they lose you as a customer. It's very bizarre.

Nothing is stopping him from talking about a game and reviewing it. You don't need 30 minutes of copyrighted footage, audio dump and OST rips to say if you like a game.

Commenting through an entire broadcasted game walkthrough is not "transformative work" that puts you in the clear when a massive bulk of the production is elevated by other people's property.

After watching his take on Nintendo youtube copyright, it does shed some light there's more to it then just trying to dodge them, I had no idea youtube has a sensitive Bot that detects anything Nintendo despite Joe tried to hide the contents. I comment on his video how he should just do this: (Copy/Paste)

"Here's an idea Joe. Take the first revenue lost on Nintendo game review when you upload it to YouTube and then, upload another none Nintendo review game (like Horizon: Zero Dawn) to get the revenue lost back from the first upload and you'll win. Upload Nintendo review game first and follow by none Nintendo game review is how I can see this is gonna work to make that revenue back"

Joe is just gonna half to take a lost on the revenue if he's seriously wants to review Nintendo games.

He tried everything but his vids keeps getting strikes. You heard him, he loves Nintendo Switch, he already done Vlog Switch and it's obviously he wants to put out his first Nintendo game review but Nintendo of Japan only want let him do it unless he signs Nintendo program. I think Joe is just gonna have to not bother with Nintendo games and just do something else.

If you can't use the product to review it, it's bullshit, stop with your shitty argument, fair use is a super important thing.

thats depends on your definition of transformative. Do you get the same experience of playing BotW as watching someone play BotW. Its not the same

I find it sad that people still defend Nintendo on this still. And im not picking on Nintendo and think most cases copyright strikes are bs

"could review nintendo stuff with no footage"

No one does that, it's called fair use.

The special snowflake in this case is not Angry Joe but Nintendo.

Yes Youtube has an automated system that detects copyrighted sound and visual cues. The severity of some of these strikes most of the time go unnoticed by Youtube or even Nintendo. But thats why they have a claim system. They apparently dont work fast enough to sort these bot issues but thats on Youtube's management. The platform isnt perfect by any means.

He tried everything but his vids keeps getting strikes. You heard him, he loves Nintendo Switch, he already done Vlog Switch and it's obviously he wants to put out his first Nintendo game review but Nintendo of Japan only want let him do it unless he signs Nintendo program. I think Joe is just gonna have to not bother with Nintendo games and just do something else.

Please. I don't doubt he loves his works and games in general. But he loves money first and how he conducts himself everytime money is involved is proof of that.

His fanbase crowdfunded Nintendo equipment for him to do some sort of coverage and he still refused out of "principle". Nothing wrong with loving money first, but lets not pretend he is being altruistic with his fanbase here lol

You clearly don't have a clue how youtube works. The overwhelming major of any revenue taken from a video is made within a couple weeks of the post and then also it depends on the length of the video and how much time people spend watching. If revenue is cut for two weeks by, say, a DMCA strike or copyright revenue claim, it doesn't matter what level of validity such claims have, the stream is typically cut entirely until the claim passes by. Which means you can lose money on your videos for completely illegimate claims, which Nintendo is all too happy to exploit to the fullest. And just about no one is actually going to pursue a claim over youtube videos beyond the two week revenue shutdowns, not even Nintendo. The farthest it's ever been taken was just recently when Digital Homicide sued Jim Sterling, and it didn't turn out well for Digital Homicide. Nintendo really doesn't have a leg to stand on on that end, which is clear from the jillions of unmonetized nintendo videos they seemingly don't give a shit about. They just focus on revenue to be dicks and remove incentive to create a message they don't control, even a positive message.

And pewdiepie does share revenue with youtube, that's the whole core of the youtube monetization system. You as the creator get a portion of ad revenue while they host your video. The important thing is that he makes money because the companies he plays the games of, don't use robots to block and take all of any money on his half of the revenue stream. I imagine if every company was doing what nintendo does, youtube wouldn't be half of what it is today. Imagine youtube if you couldn't make money from singing any songs, reading any books, or showing anything from any piece of content that you didn't fully create yourself. Shit would have been dead on arrival, no better a source for entertainment or information than a PBS television network.

Who the hell is defending Nintendo? Forget about Nintendo. The company doesnt matter!

You have a grown ass man arguing and throwing tantrums because company X wont let him profit as much as Y Z A B and C when using their protected material!

thats depends on your definition of transformative. Do you get the same experience of playing BotW as watching someone play BotW. Its not the same

Thats a very shacky argument. What about Telltale games? Visual novels? Narrative heavy titles where interactivity takes second place?

@Thunderdrone: To most people, youtube can be a regular job, it takes talent, editing, and energy to put out good quality videos and you gotta try to give us a reason why should we sub to your channels. This is Joe's life, as a youtuber, and yes, we all love money, we all wanna be richer as Donald Trump but if you love something that's passion for games, Joe is one of them.

Its a case to case basis. That Dragon Cancer was only letting people play the first hour (because really its not much of a game) and that seemed reasonable to me. Its like watching a move, Telltale is different because there are branching paths so its not the same experience (they even have twitch polls on their newer games dont they?) and visual novels are also case by case

@Thunderdrone: Yes it is an argument. That means they're opposing just because they can.

If fair use is that loose with how and how much copyrighted material you can dump on your own profit based business, then its an easy win.

He has a case against them. Easy money too on that assured victory. You would think some of these silent walkthrough monetized channels would have done it by now no?

Never said he didnt have passion. I just said his morals regarding content are money driven. Which is fine.