Nintendo Putting Ads on Videos of their Content

That is a good point, I'll have to think about that a bit more and look up some of the terms of service. To my understanding it is totally legal for them to do it, but maybe a question is should the law be changed due to new forms of media?

Maybe a better system would be just to take a portion of the profit.

Another thing to consider is that if someone is selling DvD's, comics, etc, those can stop being sold. With the internet things aren't as simple, there can be many mirror uploads.

Perhaps the proper stance would have been to remove the videos, but maybe they thought people would respond even worse to that. So instead they went with this, the content can still exist as long as they get a cut, then people that don't want Nintendo getting money off their work could remove the videos themselves.

Now, if a person is not making money off the videos originally and then Nintendo makes money off it that is a problem. I think they may be allowed to do that as well so that is something that should probably be changed about how youtube operates.

FFS Tolvo. Go read that link. You have such an incredibly bad understanding of copyright law and fair use.

Yes legal to do but that doesn't mean that publishers are free from being sued. This needs to go to court so it can be settled once and for all.

Also I've just had a funny thought. Can you imagine a company like Mattel taking ad revenue for people recording themselves playing the real world board game scrabble, or them getting a take down notice for copyright infringement.

I was actually thinking about that earlier today, and it is a very weird thought to have. That gets into a strange territory, since you have people on screen, there aren't audio samples from the game, and the screen isn't fixed to the game. It's a very confusing territory. There actually are people who do that sort of stuff by the way, there is a series called Beer and Board games, and honestly in regards to the legal issues there I have no clue if that is within their right due to how vastly different the content is.

And yes as I said earlier I do wish it would be brought to court just so it can be settled. To my knowledge none of us are lawyers so while we can discuss this and do research, we aren't experts in the field exactly.

Also steve while it may sound like I'm being stubborn as a slight aside I felt I should mention I do respect your views and opinions, and you do have me questioning things I was a lot more firm on previously.

Tolvo wrote:Also steve while it may sound like I'm being stubborn as a slight aside I felt I should mention I do respect your views and opinions, and you do have me questioning things I was a lot more firm on previously.

No worries you don't have to explain yourself and there's nothing wrong with being stubborn, I do it to and it's usually because the stuff I tend to be stubborn on is usually firmly grounded, I'm sure it's the same for you. Providing we have the ability to admit we can be wrong is a very healthy balance. I also try my best to listen carefully and fully understand other people as I feel everyone's opinion is important to hear. I respect everyone's view here even if my view can get heated with theirs on occasion. Some of that can be my fault as I don't know when to tone my language down as I have a habit of being a bit too blunt. I too take note of what you say all the time and you do bring up some great points. Even if I don't reply to a thread that I'm reading doesn't mean that no one enlightens me, a lot of the time people like you say stuff I really agree on so there's no need for me to reply.

Just thought you'd like to hear that opinions like yours matter to me.

See this is the sort of stuff I love about this forum, it doesn't always happen but even when people disagree they can be totally respectful about it and really try to understand each other. I think I've sort of said everything I really wanted to about this subject, but maybe I'll pick this back up if any more news comes of it. It was a nice time discussing this with you man.

Having not read the entire thread up to this point, I apologize if something has already been said, but I thought uploaders only got ad revenue when they signed a contract with Youtube that required them to produce videos at a certain rate and have a certain number of views per video. Basically, if you consistently draw lots of views, Youtube will let you in on a bit of the cut if you want it because you're then contributing towards alot of traffic for those ads, but they don't just automatically give any uploader who has an ad on their video some dough.

Yes you have to agree to it and qualify for partnership.

That's not correct. That's how it used to be, but it no longer works that way. Just about anyone with a mildly popular vid can become a partner.