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

To me it seems like Nintendo is shooting its own foot with these measures, but that's not for me to decide. Nintendo spent all the money making this content. They decide what happens with it. Maybe they have data that shows that this youtube stuff is a big leach. My guess is that ideally, Nintendo would allow reviews and unboxings, but not Lets Plays.

There is a legitimate issue with "Fair Use" though, and corporations tend to abuse it. However, these corporations aren't the ones taking videos down. Youtube is. That criticism should go against Youtube, not Nintendo. Nintendo is doing what it feels is best to protect their property. They serve their customers and their stock holders, not youtubers or youtube watchers.

@gigantrax said:

@goldenelementxl said:

@gigantrax said:

1. Well. I didn't know 1-2 switch was that bad. If not for Joe, I would obviously had bought it.

P.S- An average consumer doesn't have unlimited money. 60 dollars is still a big deal.

You could have checked almost ANY coverage of 1 2 Switch to learn it was a bad game. So don't credit Joe for deterring your ignorance.

Ok last thing. Jesus. I stopped viewing aggregate sites like metacritic after the Star Trek the Video game debacle. Another angry joe video about that issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB7r9m9vYNA

So you ignored the 40 reviews for 1 2 Switch and only go by Angry Joes review? You seem to be sourcing him a lot too.

Are you Angry Joe???????

Man, I'd pay good money to see someone make a monetized channel where they review AJ reviews and Let's Watch his Lets Plays by simply dumping his video content and talking over it. Its transformative AND its journalism tecnically.

Like, literally a pocket change shitty ass production where someone just talks over or film themselves looking at his ANGRY skits. Imagine if it got as many views. Bet his team would love it lmao

Oh god, I'd love it if this became a valid career option thing on Youtube. Perfectly encapsulates the stupidity of Youtube businesses and the ticking time bomb that 90% of these channels have strapped on their foreheads.

You sound frustrated by it all. Do you think they should just ban all this Let's play stuff and Youtube in general?

I dont

https://twitter.com/steescribbles/status/555929699516690432

Saw a video of him with a sports car doing donuts, and... he needs donations? For a console a kid with a paper round could afford?

Eh?

lol.. I'm not Angry Joe. The discussion is literally named after Angry Joe so I'm citing him. I can cite a couple of Total Biscuit videos on this topic like- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D_Vyca69TE and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj6jREPcp10

The most important one- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzeULO59hG0

Well.. Just like Digital Homicide tried to do with Jim Sterling.. coz that went well for Digital Homicide.. They're literally defunct now.

As far as Zelda goes, for now it's preemptive concern Joe has. The whole video is that he's hesitant to do a review based on past experience. He's had a string of incidents where he rants badly about something or other with Nintendo, and surprise surpriiiiiiiiiiise.... they slam down the hammer on his video because they don't like what he has to say about it. And it happened just recently with 1-2-Switch where the copyright strike got abuse... oh wait, exercised as per their given right, with none afforded to Joe because of Youtube's one-sided system. And if it happened with that game (even calling it a game is being generous) he's got reservations the same will happen for Breath of the Wild.

Yeah there are a ton of Zelda reviews on Youtube, but how many are negative? So far all we hear is glowing praise. Why would Nintendo take that down? Joe's whole premise, while speculative is drawing from experience - that his Zelda video will be taken down automatically, because of his extensive past dealing with them that they'll use that strike button to trump his media rights. Which they have done plenty of times.

Everybody here is entitled to disagree with his content all they like, disparage his quality, his narrative style, his scoring metric, or just dismiss him because he's not part of some media syndicate. That's your prerogative. But please please don't tell me that Nintendo targeting any channel just because they don't like what he/they has to say is in any way ethical.

donation money =/= money specifically for a wii u.

thats his job, the donations are just to support the person, not to get him to buy something. He took the money he earned and invested it into a wii u to cover Nintendo stuff for his audience and have more options for videos. Nobody said heres $300 for a wii u, review shit for me.

It's gonna happen regarding video games. "Content Creators" are basically stealing the work of developers and profiting from it. Can I show clips from an NFL game while analyzing it on a Youtube channel? No, my ass would have been sued immediately. Once publishers unite over a stance and how to enforce it, it's game over. Without video game footage, Angry Joe wouldn't have a channel. People are there for the games, while his persona is just an added bonus. I think he's a likable guy with some genuinely funny moments. But without showing the work of video game developers, nobody would be watching his videos. And why shouldn't developers or publishers profit from his videos? He's showing their work and making himself and Youtube money in the process.

The gaming industry is behind the ball here, but don't worry. The suits will straighten this all out eventually.

lol

He says it in the damn video the money was specifically donated by his fans for that!

Its a donation to a person, he bought one because people wanted him to do wii u stuff. Its a business decision, he didnt have to. It wasnt a kickstarter to get Angry Joe a wii u

lol.. That's never going to happen. This is a specific problem with Japanese publishers like Capcom and Nintendo and Sega. No. Publisher in USA does this kind of shit.

Jesus Christ, whoever donated said it publically it was for him to buy it and cover it. Yes he could've spent it on blow, but he didn't and accepted the offer and what it was intended for.

I think everyone seem to forget that Capcom took one of AJ Street Fighter vid and he also bitch about it. It's not just Nintendo, Capcom can also come in and take down a content so yeah, if Capcom is involve, we could see other's to join in no time.

Well.. guys just watch it for 5 minutes... https://youtu.be/FzeULO59hG0?t=11m56s by Total Biscuit

That's a pretty shit comparison. NFL own the league and footage for those specific games in their league, but they don't own football. Anyone can play and make videos for football if they so desire.

You're basically suggesting that no one should ever be allowed to show any footage of any game they don't own.

I can't imagine this line of thinking would go over well for anyone, particularly people who are playing competitive games at a professional level and want to review footage from past games, or people who want to watch pros to figure out how to get better, or just like watching these games played well that they suck at.

This isn't just trolling that I'm not privy to is it?

Guess I just imagined this video and the tons of others just like it.

@Thunderdrone: share the revenue with their content? ah yes

The nintendo youtube program

you mean the one where if you join, Nintendo will take money from videox that don't use their assets.

Like, you know, most of AJ videos, including movie reviews and such.

Apparently, you can't monotize Nintendo property even if it's transformatize content, but Ninty sure wants you to legally allow them to steal your money from shit that isn't even theirs.

cool

By that logic youtube taking a cut from all youtubers is also stealing. Gotcha.

No one wants to see footage of you reviewing your own football sessions. The same way no one wants to watch AJ reviewing his Unity projects. How is this a good comparison? lol

If you want to make a monetized channel with NFL or NBA footage, you are gonna have to pay up. Every single person showing footage owned by NBA is sharing revenew with the association, be it Youtube or Channel owners.

It's an apt comparison. NFL footage = videogame footage. You don't own it. No matter how much you wanna cry about it you don't own it. You can REVIEW a football game but that does not entitle you to use their footage in your review.

@Bread_or_Decide: you're kididng right?

yt is the platform. just like an online store, such as steam, taking a cut for selling there

Not even close

we're talking about nintendo taking a cut of videos that don't use their content, even though they force you to join them if you want to monotize theirs

Nope. Youtube is stealing from content creators. How dare they ask for a cut from content they didn't create. It's stealing and I won't stand for it.

Noooooooo, it's not Youtube taking down the videos, it's what ever company or individual who is. Youtube has the system in place, but they're not making the calls of which videos pass or which ones get shot down. A strike has to be filed by someone, they submit it and BAM, down goes a video. There have been plenty of other channels taking screen shots, showing the BS they had to deal with, where they get a notification and it outlines who issued the strike and why. Youtube may have provided the gun, but it's still a person/business that has to aim it and pull the trigger.

Sure there's an appeal system as well, but as time is essential on these videos, with the influx of content coming in on an hourly basis there's a narrow window of opportunity for video exposure before people just move on to the next. And the companies abusing the system know this. It only takes seconds for them and time is on their side, time lost for the channel to dispute the strike, so it's still served its purpose to penalize the video creator who lost the exposure when they needed it most.

If Youtube really wants to give fair protection to copyright holders, there should also be equally fair protection for content creators under common fair usage laws. The whole problem with the system is that takedowns are automatic, and the appeal process takes too long. Like I said even when the appeal succeeds, they can't undo the damage.

It's set up entirely backwards, the fact that videos can be taken down immediately without being reviewed to verify the merit of the complaint, and that they have to fight to get it restored is operating on the principle, "guilty until proven innocent". To keep protection fair on both sides, no video should be taken down until after it's been reviewed and a case can be made for copyright violation. How it should work is; someone files a strike, Youtube department receives it and reviews it as soon as they can (going through the numerous cases they likely get) to get to the two possible outcomes;

1. complaint is ruled as invalid, and in that time channel has suffered no consequence for an unjust protest

2. complaint is ruled as legit, the proper action is taken and justice is served to the injured party. in case of revenue undeservedly earned, youtube could have cause to enforce reclaiming money made on that specific video, to be granted to the persons who's original material was shown to be stolen from.

As it is now, it's egregiously unbalanced with complete disregard for freedom of the press.

@Bread_or_Decide: YT is the one paying them. ofcourse they take a cut.

damm you nintendo fandrones are the worse

@Bread_or_Decide: Doesn't Nintendo youtube program only takes very small of revenue from youtubers but not exactly all of it? I mean, fair is fair right?

lol.. again.. please watch this video by totalbiscuit.. it explains this in detailed from the time Phil Fish tried this stunt.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzeULO59hG0&feature=youtu.be&t=11m56s

Nope. YT has nothing to do with the content. They shouldn't take a share of it at all. It's stealing from content creators. YT had nothing to do with those videos. They should upload them and then take none of the profits.

Unless you're saying that the content creator wouldn't even have a business without youtube and thus youtube deserves a cut...I mean that sorta makes sense doesn't it...but nope...stealing. And stealing is wrong.

Shhhhh, logic is not allowed here. Down with the system! Fight the beavers!

youtube does a service in hosting it and marketing for ads so they actually can make money, of course they are going to take a cut. That has nothing to do with fair use, its a service

I want to fairly use their service without them stealing money from me. HOSTING? SERVICE? Please, the internet belongs to everyone they can't host or own or serve a thing and then ask for a thing back for that thing.

@Bread_or_Decide: ofcourse they wouldn't have a business without YT. It's YT that's paying them.

Holy shit, you can't be serious.

YT takes a cut because it's their platform and it's them that pays.

If they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.

NT forces people to use their program to monotize their IPs. People can say no and move on. The problem is that NT takes a cut for every video, so even if only 10% of your channel is dedicated to them, they take from 100% of it. ****, you could have a fitness and gaming channel where you talk about Metroid because you're a fan. If you sign up for it, Ninty will monotize your fucking fitness videos.

This is like YT forcing you to give them money if you also used some other video streaming site.

Honestly, i only find this even more disgusting because Nintendo bitches about emulation, which is LEGAL, and the piracy that comes from, yet runs around taking money from videos that don't use their stuff.

youre being ridiculous. There is no law entitling you to post your videos on youtube, but there is a law entitling you to post transfomative works. Its really as simple as that

Joe: I'mn not going to do Nintendo videos. Whatever they do I don't care.

*A few moment later*

Joe: WTF Nintendo

Me: lol

Nope, there is no such entitlement good sir. Hence why stuckman, jahns, moviebob, and schmoes knows don't post movie footage in their reviews. Because they're avoiding the takedowns they're likely to get for posting someone elses' content.

@Bread_or_Decide: they're are probably trying to avoid getting flagged by a broken system

OR they don't own that footage because it belongs to the movie studios and thus its best not to use it. Instead of being cry babies and claiming they do own it.

I dont think thats it

I'm not going to argue what constitutes Fair Use since I'd need to do more research on the matter and cannot (since I'm on lunch break), but I will say that if Angry Joe truly wanted to talk about Zelda, he could do so using no footage of the game whatsoever.

It wouldn't make for compelling content to watch, but if his review points are clearly written and delivered the message is the same. A disclaimer at the start of the video that it will lack visuals on account of Nintendo's policies would convey his grievances about the issue without resorting to rants.

I think Joe has enough of a dedicated audience/fanbase that they'll still hear his review without the pretty pictures. I know I'd like to see/hear such a review.

Redlettermedia uses clips, trailers, and behind the scenes footage in just about every review they do. Hell the Mr. Plinkett reviews basically show a mountain of footage of Star Wars prequels, you could see the entire plot unfold if you played it in the right order. They have yet to be taken down, so I would say it's safe to assume there's more involved here than your trollish concept of what is owned by whom.

The real reason other reviewers don't show this kind of material is because they are typically single person channels putting out videos less than 10 minutes long, with no alternative sources of income. They have to be extremely careful because even a false flag is very dangerous to them. Also they have to put out videos quickly to stay relevant with their formats, which means not spending extra time editing footage together. But RLM have at least a couple channels of various types, and are run by at least five dudes. It's a lot easier for them to contend with these matters if they come up.

Some of you people are so caught up in your fanaticism for Nintendo and/or are salty/jealous about YouTubers that you don't care about Nintendo trying to quell criticism and control the messege.

... is actualy right

Nintendo's policies on youtube are extremely outdated. But Angryjoe does come off as whiny for the past 2 years so it is hard for me to give a shit about him. He comes from TGWTG school of whining.

EDIT: I know this is SWs and it is meant to be a joke but Nintendo = Hitler? I've now seen it all.

Yeah I only imagined the negative youtube reviews.

I just watched the video. I damn near threw my phone out the car window. This guy thinks that because he is moving a character around, or interacting with the game, it makes it transformative work? "It relies on MY inputs!" "These are unique scores." Somebody animated and coded all of that you jackass.

He complains about how it takes him 80 hours to play through a game, go out and buy the costumes, make the special effects and edit the videos. And yet he downplays the developers work and investment. They spend years of time and millions of dollars! His mind is freakin twisted.

And then there is his lack of professionalism. Why would Nintendo, a family friendly company whitelist a channel that drops F bombs every 30 seconds?

And lastly there is this whole, "I just want to share my opinions and show you my videos." Well if that's all you want Joe, let Nintendo monetize the videos and post them anyway. I mean, it's all about the viewers, right? Oh wait, he's upset because he wants all the revenue... And the ego on this guy to say Nintendo would do so much better if they left him alone. I think Zelda is gonna sell just fine without Joes help.