Poll of the Day > it's so confusing to me that nintendo dmca's a large portion of creators who

(+) Yeah! (+)

make positive videos about their products

A lot of music labels apparently do this too

It gets a lot less confusing when you remember that you're thinking about Nintendo in the context of the Internet. They... don't quite understand it just yet, and don't seem to have gotten past the initial impression of "people are using it to steal our products."

i mean, at this point i don't believe that, this has to be extremely deliberate

all the bad press they've gotten over these would have prompted any normal company to check in to it, issue some states and make a promise to not do it so much

nintendo just...doesn't. i fully believe they know what they're doing. well, maybe not so much the c suite, i would be surprised if they even gave a shit

Don't they have to protect their IP for copyright reasons whether or not someone is praising them?

Well you are a confused Torchic

that's typically only if they're using nintendo assets to make their own fan gam, like the pokemon uranium or another metroid 2 remake, for example.

someone making a video talking about how they're excited for such and such, or like, a video explaining lore, not so much because if anything it just uses clips from various games which should count as fair use but nintendo will not give in under any circumstances. it's free publicity, essentially, and they just "no"

i can understand taking down negative things, or rips of their music, but it's the positive things that i understand less

Jen0125 posted...

Don't they have to protect their IP for copyright reasons whether or not someone is praising them?

This is a myth.

Jen0125 posted...

Don't they have to protect their IP for copyright reasons whether or not someone is praising them?

Does copyright serve any purpose in society? Let's just do away with it.

yes, it does

if you make something that's mildly successful and someone else comes along and just repackages your thing and sells it as theirs, they'd be fully within their legal right to do that if no copyright laws existed, because you just wouldn't own anything you create

A lot of Japanese companies have this problem they're just a bit out of date they'll catch up eventually

Jen0125 posted...

Don't they have to protect their IP for copyright reasons whether or not someone is praising them?

People still regurgitate this crap?

ConfusedTorchic posted...

if you make something that's mildly successful and someone else comes along and just repackages your thing and sells it as theirs, they'd be fully within their legal right to do that if no copyright laws existed, because you just wouldn't own anything you create

I think having it is causing more problems.

id be homeless or dead if it wasnt for copyright

ConfusedTorchic posted...

that's typically only if they're using nintendo assets to make their own fan gam, like the pokemon uranium or another metroid 2 remake, for example.

someone making a video talking about how they're excited for such and such, or like, a video explaining lore, not so much because if anything it just uses clips from various games which should count as fair use but nintendo will not give in under any circumstances. it's free publicity, essentially, and they just "no"

i can understand taking down negative things, or rips of their music, but it's the positive things that i understand less

Oh yeah that's ridiculous. Are they successful DCMA take downs? Do people appeal them?

IP laws are fucking stupid and shouldnt exist. i will die on this hill.

Jen0125 posted...

Oh yeah that's ridiculous. Are they successful DCMA take downs? Do people appeal them?

i'm sure some have tried, but i don't think many could afford to

What is with the idiotic thinking that companies shouldn't protect or be able to protect their IPs? Just because YouTube exists it should be a free-for-all? That's just fucking stupid.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think having it is causing more problems.

That would be because you only hear about the fringe cases of copyright laws being abused. The fundamental concept is fine, and is in fact pretty much necessary for creatives to be commercially successful at all. In the vast majority of cases, things work as intended and you don't hear anything about them because reporting on the status quo is boring. To abolish the concept because of a few fringe cases of abuse would make no sense at all.

jsb0714 posted...

What is with the idiotic thinking that companies shouldn't protect or be able to protect their IPs? Just because YouTube exists it should be a free-for-all? That's just fucking stupid.

Protecting IP's is fair game, but exerting absolute control over who is and isn't allowed to even display footage from a game is pretty dubious. For one thing, that's exactly what the concept of "fair use" is meant to protect, but more than that, there's little to no benefit and often quite a bit of harm to be found by doing so. It's not the end of the world if that happens, since it's not like there aren't plenty of other companies that are perfectly happy having streamers cover their games to keep that industry afloat, but it's still just a bizarre stance to take and not really a good look overall.

adjl posted...

Protecting IP's is fair game, but exerting absolute control over who is and isn't allowed to even display footage from a game is pretty dubious. For one thing, that's exactly what the concept of "fair use" is meant to protect, but more than that, there's little to no benefit and often quite a bit of harm to be found by doing so. It's not the end of the world if that happens, since it's not like there aren't plenty of other companies that are perfectly happy having streamers cover their games to keep that industry afloat, but it's still just a bizarre stance to take and not really a good look overall.

Yeah, it looks bad only for those trying to bullshit their way into the "fair use" argument.

adjl posted...

Protecting IP's is fair game, but exerting absolute control over who is and isn't allowed to even display footage from a game is pretty dubious. For one thing, that's exactly what the concept of "fair use" is meant to protect, but more than that, there's little to no benefit and often quite a bit of harm to be found by doing so.

Keep in mind that Japanese copyright law is some of the strictest in the world and there is no equivalent in it to the "Fair Use" provisions that show up in most western copyright laws.

That shouldn't matter on most platforms, as they're frequently based out of the US and American law would apply (at best, Nintendo could get the videos blocked in Japan and/or penalties applied to Japanese creators), but the extent of Fair Use is also somewhat subjective. Let's Plays, for instance, generally don't fall under Fair Use because of how extensively they're using copyrighted material; reviews, on the other hand, squarely would.

Yeah, it's tricky.

adjl posted...

It gets a lot less confusing when you remember that you're thinking about Nintendo in the context of the Internet. They... don't quite understand it just yet, and don't seem to have gotten past the initial impression of "people are using it to steal our products."

It's sort of this.

Basically, what it boils down to is that they are firmly convinced that their own brand name and IPs are more than enough to sell their products, so they don't see any value in using the Internet to advertise beyond their own marketing. Worse, because they can't really control how fans engage with their content, they see it as being worse than no marketing at all.

So what they're essentially left with is something they see zero value in that also borders on infringement. Of course they're going to go gunning for it.

They're not the only ones who see things that way - it's a very Japanese mentality in general. New Japan Pro Wrestling, for instance, has a draconian reputation for copyright striking pretty much anything even remotely related to their product (whereas larger companies like AEW and WWE actively court the Internet to fuel fan engagement).

It's not so much that Nintendo doesn't understand the Internet, it's more that they prioritize things differently.

I'm not convinced that Nintendo wants people to buy their products.

Hey, this thing is popular. Let's only make enough to meet 40% of demand.

This type of game is selling really well now, but a game in that genre didn't sell 30 years ago, lets not sell it in that country.

Can't do those because it's digital, let's add as many steps as possible to make it more difficult and confusing to buy something. Then let's build a reputation of denying access to what was purchased so people will be wary of doing so.

That would be called creating artificial scarcity in order to give people FOMO.

Nintendo does this all the time, it's not unusual for them. Why they seemingly get a free pass to do this is obnoxious.

I came to the conclusion, years ago, that Nintendo does this to basically steal revenue from people, because Nintendo as a company doesn't make enough with their own games. They could make all the sales with games and merchandise, and it wouldn't be enough; yet they haven't even done that. If people were to stop reviewing Nintendo's games altogether, it would force Nintendo to have to spend the same money they're stealing, if not a little more, on marketing, probably.

Nintendo has been like this forever.

They'd rather have an iron grip on their IPs and have absolute control over exactly what is said about them rather then get lots of free marketing. It's a very Japanese approach, that being said Disney has a similar attitude.

In most cases, the DMCA isn't legitimate, the company just wants to harass the content creator into stopping by removing monetization, or screwing them over in the algorithm, they don't want to actually respond to a counter claim and take it to court.

But if a company keeps doing this it discourages the videos from being made altogether, which is the goal.

Disney is just weird with what they go after. They fought for decades to extend copyright laws and then just let og Mickey lapse and it's now public domain.

chelle posted...

That would be called creating artificial scarcity in order to give people FOMO.

Yes, that fits, but what purpose does that serve? They make a certain number of copies and generate a certain amount of revenue. Or they could make more revenue by selling more copies. Instead they limit their own profits while increasing the profits of scalpers who make it so only those who will pay the most can get a copy. That inflated price doesn't benefit Nintendo.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yes, that fits, but what purpose does that serve? They make a certain number of copies and generate a certain amount of revenue. Or they could make more revenue by selling more copies. Instead they limit their own profits while increasing the profits of scalpers who make it so only those who will pay the most can get a copy. That inflated price doesn't benefit Nintendo.

It mostly serves to increase the likelihood that they sell 100% of the product they produce. Scarcity (real or perceived) drives up demand to the point where the items reliably sell out with no additional marketing or sales projections needed to ensure that. They choose to err on the side of under-producing and miss out on some potential revenue instead of wasting production resources on surplus products.

Now, saying that, not every shortage of Nintendo items is necessarily artificial scarcity. The Wii, for example, sold much, much better than just about anyone predicted and maxed out their production capacity for a long while. Similarly, thanks in no small part to Animal Crossing launching at exactly the right time, there was a huge spike in demand for Switches in early 2020 that was hard to satisfy because of global supply shortages. Their special editions, though? 100% artificial scarcity.

chelle posted...

Disney is just weird with what they go after. They fought for decades to extend copyright laws and then just let og Mickey lapse and it's now public domain.

It wasn't really their choice. Basically what happened was that they pushed copyright so far that even lawmakers were starting to get sick of it, and basically told Disney they weren't going to extend it again.

So Disney was basically left in a scenario where they couldn't keep their stuff under protection forever, which meant they needed to figure out new ways to screw people over. The live-action movies are part of that. A willingness to use trademark law (which works differently) as a weapon is also part of the plan.

It's an extremely complicated mess. But make no mistake, Disney didn't "just give up". The company that literally sued pre-K daycare centers for drawing Disney characters on the wall didn't suddenly decide they were cool with other people using their stuff.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

that's typically only if they're using nintendo assets to make their own fan gam, like the pokemon uranium or another metroid 2 remake, for example.

someone making a video talking about how they're excited for such and such, or like, a video explaining lore, not so much because if anything it just uses clips from various games which should count as fair use but nintendo will not give in under any circumstances. it's free publicity, essentially, and they just "no"

i can understand taking down negative things, or rips of their music, but it's the positive things that i understand less

Nintendo would lose a lawsuit if somebody actually took them to court for that. The only reason it hasn't happened is because people like that don't have money.

jsb0714 posted...

What is with the idiotic thinking that companies shouldn't protect or be able to protect their IPs? Just because YouTube exists it should be a free-for-all? That's just fucking stupid.

They shouldn't be able to protect their intellectual properties if it violates Fair Use.

chelle posted...

Disney is just weird with what they go after. They fought for decades to extend copyright laws and then just let og Mickey lapse and it's now public domain.

Because they couldn't. There was nothing that could have been done to stop that from being public domain. That was only for the original cartoon anyway.

adjl posted...

It gets a lot less confusing when you remember that you're thinking about Nintendo in the context of the Internet. They... don't quite understand it just yet, and don't seem to have gotten past the initial impression of "people are using it to steal our products."

Or could it be that they simply dont want to participate in the internet the same way you do? Shouldnt they have that right?

BeerOnTap posted...

Or could it be that they simply dont want to participate in the internet the same way you do? Shouldnt they have that right?

They should (and do) have that right, but that right doesn't preclude them from being criticized or ridiculed for doing something that's objectively worse for everyone involved.

adjl posted...

They should (and do) have that right, but that right doesn't preclude them from being criticized or ridiculed for doing something that's objectively worse for everyone involved.

But it does mean they still retain the right to nuke your criticism or ridicule into the abyss when you use their actual content do it.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But it does mean they still retain the right to nuke your criticism or ridicule into the abyss when you use their actual content do it.

Indeed.

Revelation34 posted...

people like that don't have money.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

but i don't think many could afford to

you don't say

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But it does mean they still retain the right to nuke your criticism or ridicule into the abyss when you use their actual content do it.

They don't have that right when it comes to Fair Use.