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

@gigantrax: What about it? Are you anti game reviewers? Daniel Bloodworth doesnt use ads. Hes paid from his Patreon.

Do you seriously think Nintendo needs a Youtubers "free publicity" to sell copies of Zelda, or any of their first person titles? GTFO. But I can tell you who would really benefit from Nintendo allowing this. "Content creators" like Joe who get compensated on views. Nintendo doesn't need Joe, but Joe would sure love to get some extra clicks from "reviewing" Nintendo games.

Dev teams work countless hours over a period of years working on their games. How is it right for some guy with a computer and a camera to profit off of their work? He's not a journalist. He has shown on many occasions that he doesn't have a grasp on how game creation or the industry works. Being on his bad side doesn't hurt anything. As we will see with Twitch implementing the "buy now button," The majority of people who watch this stuff do not buy games. They are a bunch of entitled leeches. Joe was smart enough to capitalize on them. Gotta give him credit for that.

@gigantrax: It pays to be professional. AngryJoe cant do that though, majority of his viewers dont have jobs. He needs them clicks for big corporations.

There are 9 people on staff there. I don't know how they split things up, but none of them are "rich." Hell, that would put them around the median household income in the U.S. And if they live in San Francisco or New York, that means they are living like poor folks.

Well. But, I said more or as much passionate as Joe. The guy is just reading stuff. I would agree about that for Jim Sterling but, he mostly reviews the game in the underbelly of Steam.

@goldenelementxl said:

@crashnburn281 said:

Nintendo are retards not to take free publicity on YouTube. Zelda is a great game no doubt and all they got was negative press with this.

Surely doesn't make me want to run out and get a Switch.

Do you seriously think Nintendo needs a Youtubers "free publicity" to sell copies of Zelda, or any of their first person titles? GTFO. But I can tell you who would really benefit from Nintendo allowing this. "Content creators" like Joe who get compensated on views. Nintendo doesn't need Joe, but Joe would sure love to get some extra clicks from "reviewing" Nintendo games.

Dev teams work countless hours over a period of years working on their games. How is it right for some guy with a computer and a camera to profit off of their work? He's not a journalist. He has shown on many occasions that he doesn't have a grasp on how game creation or the industry works. Being on his bad side doesn't hurt anything. As we will see with Twitch implementing the "buy now button," The majority of people who watch this stuff do not buy games. They are a bunch of entitled leeches. Joe was smart enough to capitalize on them. Gotta give him credit for that.

Love the pic. Well.. Today games industry works like this. One company gives a game or a device free of cost to a reviewer (called review copy) which the reviewer reviews and spreads the word. Now, if the video got 500k views, I can guarantee you that that video sold at least 2 copies of the game or device (its generally quite larger than that). That's a net win for the company. Its basic economics.

@gigantrax: sorry, I don't follow?

Maybe it's the entitled millennials that are out of touch with reality.

Says who? Joe? Nobody hired him. He knows nothing about the industry. He has never made a game. He's never published anything. He's a consumer capitalizing on the infancy of "content creation." The fact that he calls these videos, "reviews" changes nothing. He doesn't work for any publication and isn't credentialed anywhere. So why would a dev or publisher want him reviewing their games?

Joe is the only one with something to gain here. If Joe was really for his viewers and wanted to positively impact the community, he would give his "free press" to smaller indie titles. There is a reason Joe goes after the blockbuster titles. They get him more money. And lets be real here. His shit isn't that good. He's a likable guy, but he trips all over his words and he is often times all over the place. His intros are his wheelhouse.

Well. So called Professional critics at IGN are doing a marvelous job. BTW.. Titanfall was 8.9 on IGN .. Its weird guys like Angry Joe who ultimately save my money off of the trash

@gigantrax: Reading stuff? He reviews games and does Podcast, Lets Plays, etc. He also edits for Easy Allies. Who reviewed Titanfall is the question, IGN is a gigantic company. And Titanfall has an 86 overall Metacritic, seems the IGN review was on point. Sounds like AngryJoe was just...angry about that one.

Well.. I am not taking this argument any further. There are only some guys in youtube who are actually honest about their games in their reviews and they're generally the targets for these kind of attacks. Since, a legend of zelda video is uploaded in Easy Allies channel, I can't trust them as they most probably did an agreement with Nintendo.

@gigantrax: How would you know, can you read their minds? Dont trust no one in this world. And also, its dangerous to journey alone.

Yeah, it went down really well when SEGA started to take down and copy right strike all videos on youtube with Shining Force footage in them. It was hilarious to watch big youtubers say "**** Sega" and then watch Sega pathetically crawl back to the same youtubers begging the youtubers to make videos with Segas products.

lol.. did you even watch angry joe's video on this..?? Read this https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/guide/ and this http://kotaku.com/nintendos-youtube-plan-is-already-being-panned-by-youtu-1682527904

Considering, I just got an ad on the legend of zelda review of Easy Allies.

lol.. you're probably using an adblock.

1 - Attacks?!?! It's their property!

2 - What makes a review, "honest?" I ask because 90% of the time an honest or "spot on" review to a poster on a message board simply means it justifies their decision (or inability) to buy a game.

3 - So what you're saying is you don't trust what any major site or publication has to say about a game? Do you honestly think Zelda BotW is actually a bad game that is being overhyped by the Nintendo controlled media?

Do you think it is fair that nintendo would of got a cut of that video. Him going to the trouble of making a professional review and nintendo would of rinsed him for royalties over the footage he showed. where as MS, Sony etc just see that as fair use.

1. According to Fair Use Doctrine that video is the property of the content creator (youtuber).

2. "honest" means just that. In reviews, It means telling what you think without any restrictions to say otherwise either by the product owning company or PR department. It also adds a requirement of justification.

3. The debate is on the whole policy of Nintendo, and its just an example of the policy. Not all Nintendo games are gems (1-2 switch lol..). BTW. Every video content (especially reviews and lets plays) on Nintendo games need to pass under Nintendo for monetization. This is a pretty old policy.

I side with Nintendo on this. You can't just use Metallica music in a video without their permission, why should reviewers make money off of Nintendos hard work? There are many ways he can do a video using Nintendo footage. He can go through their website and go through the proper channels, or he can use stock footage.

Yeah, I know I'm in the minority here, but every other media industry restricts copyright material, why are games different? Can't post a let's watch of a brand new movie and not have it taken down.

And yet.. Game companies more successful than Nintendo (Microsoft, Ubisoft, Sony, i can go on..) actually recognize the value of free advertising.

EDIT- And bro.. FYI Nintendo doesn't even allow stock footage for use in creating youtube video.

Movies and music are not the same as games. I can watch a movie or listen to a song on the internet and get the same experience as if I went to the theater or bought the song. With a game, its not the same experience when I watch it on the internet to when I play it myself. Its transformative and therefore falls under fair use

Nintendo restricts specific story or game details being shown in video reviews and preview videos. Giant Bomb does a great job of illustrating these restrictions every time they encounter them in their "quick looks." That doesn't mean that Dan Ryckert had to give the game 5 stars because Nintendo made him. Journalist are able to have whatever opinion they want. Nintendo can't control that. What Nintendo can control is the video content, spoilers etc.

I dont think it will work in the same way for Joe because Doug is trying to be funny, that is the goal. Doug is there to entertain you and acting out scenes can achieve this. For Joe, he's trying to entertain you, but also be informative on something. Have gameplay footage gives context in review that I dont think can be achieved by acting it out because then it becomes "is he overplaying it".

Bro. Go through the video on which this entire discussion is going on. A 5 second segment of a giant bush and a gorrilla was getting claimed by the bot.

Nah, BS. Review sites need to be able to show short clips. The news uses clips of movies and music and doesn't have to "pay" a dime for them FYI. It's called "fair use" of copyrighted materials. I believe there are rules though, that they can only show a certain amount at a time.

With games, it makes sense you might need to show more than 30 seconds to prove a point with a review. In either case, as a review site, what Joe does should clearly fall under fair-use doctrine.

@boycie: Yes. He's using copyrighted material. You don't see him crying about Google taking 50% for using their services. All he has to do is follow the rules Nintendo has put for for using their content.

Except Nintendo sells more software and has higher single platform attach rates than those companies.

and stop anyone from seeing bushes and disco balls with the word dance. spoilers

Under the circumstances of this discussion, only how much money is earned matters isn't it?? Since, the discussion is about Nintendo asking for money for showing just seconds of their game content.

He knows their policy.

He knows the deal.

Does it anyway.

Then tapes a rant for video clicks.

The very definition of a manchild.

The real enemy against protecting fair use isn't the companies that shit on everyone for posting reviews against their wishes, but YouTube themselves.

lol.. I don't know what to say.. Its like you're saying "Lets not try to stop Hitler(nintendo) from killing innocent jews (youtube channels), he's gonna do it anyway".

Seems to me, that you're the manchild here, if you're above 18, if not well..

Yyyeeaaahhh, Nintendo is being a dick about this.

You compared video games to hitler.

All righty.

I compared Nintendo to Hitler. You know what happens when a channel gets three pending strikes like that do you?? It gets deleted from youtube..

@Bread_or_Decide: A little extreme on his part maybe, correct though 100%.

Sterling has it right with his copyright deadlock. just show 3 or 4 publishers stuff in your clip and let them fight amongst themselves for the fee.

*insert Erasures Chains Of Love*

I personally hate Nintendo and cannot understand why people still buy their trash. It is utter trash. Their hardware sucks, their consoles have overblown sucky libraries, sucky internet etc. Essentially its just a mess of shit that sucks. Breath of the Wild might be a good game but really, that game runs on 720p. Come the **** on. How is a game running at 720p in 2017? It simply should not be acceptable and on top of that look at the fucking price tag. You can buy a ps4 which is a MUCH more powerful machine for cheaper than this switch shit. It's nuts people are dumb enough to continue handing their money to a farce. This is why video game companies will continue to **** the consumer because the consumer appears to not have a brain.

Here's the world's smallest violin for youtubers and angry joe.

The entitled generation. Everything is mine because because. Let's see how that keeps working out for them over the years. Keep on crying.

@Thunderdrone: Except for most other forms of media there is a fair use clause.

If you do a movie review and use footage/screens from the movie as long as you are reviewing over the footage with your opinion it is deemed ok by the fair use clause. You are also providing a service to the public by reviewing said movie.

This is what GameSpot does when they review video games. They are using the same fair use clause.

Angry Joe does the same thing GameSpot does, except it's on Youtube. If Joe had the money and resources he could take Nintendo to court. That's why Nintendo grants specific people/companies to use their games for let's plays and reviews. If they didn't someone with the resources would eventually sue with the fair use defense. Like CBS probably would if Nintendo didn't let GameSpot review games or post let's plays.

Lol, and the winner of the Mr Pink Award, for dedication to a lost cause, goes to...

Some arguments really aren't worth winning.

Most youtube movie reviewers don't use movie clips anymore. Stuckman, Moviebob, Jahns, Schmoes know. The safest best is to use your own footage, i.e. your face.

I'm also 100% certain Nintendo would stomp Joe in court with their army of lawyers. Whatever law school drop out he could afford would never be able to match their legal expertise on all things Nintendo.

Well Gamespot uses proper grammer, refrains from saying "****" a dozen times, and has a general grasp on the industry as a whole. Gamespot employees are hired individuals that are held to a standard. Joe is a dude with a computer and a camera. Like many of you have said here, Joe offers "free publicity." Some don't care to have that kind of pub attached to their brand.

@goldenelementxl said:

@gigantrax said:

lol.. I don't know what to say.. Its like you're saying "Lets not try to stop Hitler(nintendo) from killing innocent jews (youtube channels), he's gonna do it anyway".

Seems to me, that you're the manchild here, if you're above 18, if not well..

Harsh as it may sound. Here's a page on youtube copyright strikes. Click on What happens to your account when you get a copyright strike?

There's little proof that youtubers have a strong enough effect on products. How many loot crates ya'll been buying lately?

And no one has mentioned that Nintendo lets you twitch stream their games no problem. But let's ignore that because it doesn't feed the nintendo is evil narrative.

Okay, if AJ can't review Nintendo games on youtube, why can't he just do it from Twitch? As far as I'm aware of, Nintendo can't do anything while everyone streams Nintendo games into Twitch.

Fair use policy is a LAW bro. Here's a page from Stanford Online Library

@goldenelementxl: It's still fair use though.

And yes if I wanted to cut up game footage and even movie footage and post a review I have the legal right to do so. Now it would get copyright claimed on Youtube and taken down, but I wouldn't have any legal action brought down on me.

That's the reason Youtuber's forgo using movie footage for their reviews. They rely on the clicks and ad revenue to make money. If they get taken down, boom no revenue.

This happened to Nintendo in the 90's with video game rentals. Nintendo tried to stop game rentals from happening, but blockbuster and various other companies banded together and through lobbying/court action eventually beat Nintendo.

If Joe was apart of a bigger company that could pose a legal threat to Nintendo, this wouldn't be happening. Nintendo would be giving him special permission.

Uh huh, go to Nintendo and teach them a thing or two. Fight the good fight bruh, I'll be here laughing at you.