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

Keep fighting the good fight. You've got some real knowledge on your side. They continue on with their same excuses. There's a reason lawyers exist and that's because the law is never cut and dry. There are so many ways to argue your case in court. To just say "this is the law they lose" only shows their ignorance, and perhaps their age. Anyone remember Napster vs the music industry? Music is still not free, it's not yours to freely distribute, and the only ways to do it are all illegal and will probably get you a virus instead of the latest One Direction song.

It's all growing pains. Yes technology and the law need to catch up to each other. But not in the way they think or say. The law will only give Nintendo more power and others will see how it benefits them. They'll follow suit. Not unlike PSN charging yearly fees. Oh, but the internet is free how could they charge you to access a service you already pay for? Well they did and now it's normal. Where are the pitchforks for that cause?

Many more great examples! And I think you may be on to something regarding age and the beliefs these people hold. But then again NeoGaf...

I'm not gonna pretend (or even take the time to learn :P ) about the Fair Use Act. You obviously know waaaay more about that than I do ... I think my post comes out of frustration towards his flip flop on his own Nintendo policy. While Nintendo and the Wii U struggled with releasing any new exciting content he "boldly" claimed he would forgo uploading anything Nintendo related due to their policy.

Now that Nintendo is riding high with a new console and one of the best games of all time and he knows a huge portion of his audience is seeking impressions/first looks/reviews. He could be losing out on a ton of hits/revenue so NOW all of a sudden he wants to cover Nintendo again?

That's what bugs me.

None of what @navyguy21 posted isn't even remotely true.

"Content Creators" love to throw around "fair use" as if it's some get out of jail free card. Find me one court ruling that even resembles fair use in the sense Angry Joe is using it. There have been news stations sued for broadcasting private videos in the name of "fair use." Spoiler alert, they lost. In fact the majority of cases where fair use fails is when money is involved. Fair use usually protects educational and non-commercial use. Angry Joe is neither of those things. Ever wonder why Jim Sterling doesn't monetize the majority of his reviews on Youtube? The same for Giant Bomb and their quick looks?

Making a review or doing a parody of copyrighting content is protected under fair use. Showing copyrighted material like video, music files etc is not. I can talk about my experience with Zelda BotW all day and not face copyright protection litigation. I can also post sketches of me and others dressed up as Zelda characters without the fear of a copyright claim on the videos. But I cannot post straight gameplay and audio of a game and claim ad revenue off of it. Nintendo absolutely has the right to claim that content. Not to mention Nintendo has the right to protect the marketing of their material. A 30-something year old man dropping F-bombs every 5th word stands to harm the Nintendo brand. Nintendo has every right to protect that and any court would rule in their favor.

Find me any music, movie or television reviewer that posts straight clips of those media types, without the permission of the content holder while monetizing the reviews. It's ok. I'll wait.

@Vaasman: Hum ... Youtubers makes money with products made by others ... I can't remember if video games had the same warning message as movies that clearly tells you that you can't use the product to make money out of it.

Can you cite me that warning message?

I'm pretty sure that's not what it says.

At all.

@Bread_or_Decide: This is not even remotely piracy like Napster, that's probably the worst false equivalency I've seen in a grey area where you have somewhat stable arguments

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/03/23/business/companies-are-pulling-ads-from-youtube-to-protect-brands

AT&T, Verizon and Johnson & Johnson have all pulled their ads from YouTube to protect their brands. Let's see what YouTube/Google can come up with to guarantee ads only run on appropriate videos. I'm sure whatever they try will be labeled as an attack on free speech by the content creator community.

@R10nu:

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft/fbi-anti-piracy-warning-seal

Image

This is somewhat related/unrelated but Yooka Laylee Devs dropping JonTron from the game. They don't want him, his words, or his actions associated with their video game. They are protecting the image of their intellectual property.

And i was right.

Reproduction and redistribution is prohibited.

Taking snippets for reviewing or commentary purposes, monetized or not, is neither.

@R10nu: Depends where you look at and the picture I showed show 4 different label for movie. One of those clearly state (the red label ) that even exhibition of copyrighted material is again the law.

It is really a grey area

You shouldn't undermine good points you make with complete nonsense like that.

Care to make that argument in a real court of law? These side bar internet lawyers...

It simply looks like Nintendo is out of touch. There is no reason to bully people trying to simply review your games. I can understand the need to protect your copyright but there should be a balance IMO. As it stands unless your white listed basically a shill there is no way to get an honest review.

Nintendo games consistently get 1 or 2 points higher IMO because of the heavy handed draconian tactics they employ.

@Thunderdrone: The other companies aren't 'letting it slide'. They aren't legally entitled to the profits where their content is merely a tool. So they don't try to lay claim to it.

What Nintendo is doing is claiming what they aren't entitled to because Youtube's policies favour them and let them leave with the cash without ever having to contest fair use in court.

Nintendo is abusing that loophole because they know the buck stops with Youtube.

Content creators can't contest this, not because they don't have a point, but because of the way legal action in these cases works. They need Nintendo to escalate things to court and ONLY THEN can they counter.

Since Nintendo can get the money without going to court, and legal action could backfire on them it makes no sense for them to do that.

If Nintendo's rights (and not just the money) were the issue they would be contesting it in court.

They aren't. And neither are the other 99%. Think about why that is. Is it more likely that Activision, Sony, EA and everyone else don't care about their rights but Nintendo does? Or that Nintendo is simply being out of touch?

Also, radio and TV are totally different as their terms of distribution are rolled into the leasing of rights for broadcast.

That's not the case for games because broadcasting them doesn't act as a pirated version of their product.

If you knitted a sweater, and someone bought it and shot footage of that sweater being worn for a video review you would not be entitled to earnings on that video. Unless you are Nintendo...

@Articuno76: Yeah if your a game review channel you risk losing it. Even if you do pay and you don't become a shill and say unflattering things about game x you won't be allowed to post another review using game content of any kind.

This will have a negative impact on the amount of views because people want to see game content in the review.

@Thunderdrone: What is your business and what copyrighted materials do you borrow, and what capacity do you use them in?

I think you'll find your situation is quite different for host of reasons.

Can we stop with this "Nintendo scores higher" thing. It's simply not true. Do I really have to go through all their games? Did I just imagine all those horrible reviews for star fox zero and metroid prime federation force? The 6 gamespot gave tropical freeze. The list is pretty big for badly scored and reviewed nintendo games.

In fact BOTW is probably the first game since 3D world that most people agreed is a good if not great game.

Angry Joe is a douche. There. I said it. Come at me internet.

His videos are over the top cheesy and unbearable, his personality is grating and immature, and he's about as funny as an arthritic knee.

Just means it's outdated. It's a grey area, but Joe's case is clear cut and protected under fair use as critique, commentary and parody.

If someone were to press charges againts me, easily.

But they won't because i would win, just like Jim Sterling did.

You still seem unable to grasp the concept of fair use.

It's a law, internet lawyer boy.

Deal with it.

That's why Nintendo is playing dirty in abusing YT's automated systems to inconvene Joe instead of suing him.

They have no leg to stand on in the court.

@R10nu: LOL What copyright court case did jim sterling win? Me thinks you're confused. Digital homicide sued him for libel and slander. Which he didn't do and won.

I'm on Nintendo's side. If I spend 5 years and a hundred million dollars making an incredible game, why some whinging entitled YouTubers be making money off it? It's Nintendo's content.

Review the game by all means, but you don't need to show video content to do that.

Film and TV reviewers don't show hours of footage!

@Bread_or_Decide: I think he, like most message board lawyers, is very confused. Jim Sterling doesn't monetize his entire Jimquisition series.

I've asked folks to look up cases where the fair use defense was successful in a court. I was attacked and insulted, but have yet to receive one example that even remotely resembles the YouTube content creators use. I have examples of reviewers in other mediums, who over years of reviewing content have yet to receive a penny from ad revenue. Why is this?

And yet they're all so certain they would win in a court of law. Good thing they don't have the money or balls to prove it. My brief googling history with fair use sees it mostly helping out in cases of parody. Weird Al, etc etc. Even then in many cases he'll get the rights/permission to certain songs to avoid all the legal mumbo jumbo.

Are they doing a parody of nintendo? Hmmm? I doubt it.