Pokemon HeartGold/SoulSilver patched

I wouldn't suggest streaming it, Nintendo are very aggressive about that kind of thing lately.

 

Why can't they? Like it or not, it's their product, and they have every right to it and earn as much out of it as possible. They don't just stop their potential earning after breaking even.

 

Yes but its disputable whether they have any right to the earnings from other people's videos. the law in some countries defines the videos as the product of the player's interaction with Nintendo IP, therefore it's an original work derived from Nintendo IP. Which makes the player themselves the rights holder to that video, not Nintendo. In those jurisdictions Nintendo has no right to claim all the income produced by those videos.

Amusingly, it also means that in those jurisdictions Nintendo shot themselves in the foot since they released a legal statement saying that they have an exclusive right to produce derivative works from their IP, because that means in those jurisdictions only Nintendo employees and/or representatives are legally allowed to play Nintendo games, as playing the game constitutes creating a derivative work, as defined above.

 

and what exactly is the point of private streaming? if it's private that defeats the object of streaming it.

Nintendo is making themselves a monster with their heavy handed approach and unnecessary lawsuits. Most companies would be happy with the publicity from people streaming their games, Nintendo just hand out lawsuits like candy and then bitch when people don't like them anymore. They are alienating their own supporters with their sue-happy attitude and they can't see that.

TLR Don't be a dick. Nintendo have forgotten that it's their fans that pay their wages, and gratuitously suing your customer base really isn't a good business move.

 

Not all company monetize 'let's play' video. Regardless if the company will or will not monetize on a youtuber's video, one have to understand that the one potentially to suffer or benefit the most is the game maker/copyright owner whatever the video content is, regardless if they want none, some, or all of the benefit generated by the video uploader. In that sense, it is understandable if they do have the need to have some measure of control on the video/review content regardless good or bad.

Of cause, the youtuber should have the right to receive compensation for their review, good or bad. What's most important is that whatever the video content is, it has to be objective not bias. If it is, then the copyright owner should be sportive enough to accept the review made, and the uploader should be entitled to benefit from his work, while they benefit from free advertising the uploader generated.

However, rather than discrediting Nintendo or Gamefreak or whatever company, just because this topic mention intention to stream 'pokemon' related game and debating on such rights to monetize a work. You guys have to first take note of what this OP's posts says. Assuming he doesn't own an NDS console or even the legit game cartridge (because he hasn't mention owning both), and the fact that he did mentioned intention to use an emulator to play a rom to make a video game play review, and goes on to saying that the copyright owner as greedy is plain naive and wrong. Then what of him? Monetizing on others brain child of whom had spent a lot (time and money) whose product he didn't even legally purchased. He maybe helping to promoto/advertise the copyright's product, but fact is, he's not even entitled to doing so nor receive financial benefit, as none of what he is using will stipulate his right to ownership or use of their product.

 

Nintendo have the right to not allow monetisation of videos made from their IP, numerous companies have exercised this right, and some companies agree to monetisation under a profit share agreement in which they receive a proportion of the money generated by the videos. That is absolutely fine, and fair.

What people are complaining about with Nintendo that, rather than not allowing monitisation, is that they demand ALL the money made from videos that they did not produce, simply because it contains some of their IP. That is not OK, and is akin to Apple or Google taking 100% of money made by apps on their app stores simply because they were written using a framework provided by them and features their logo.

A lot console lets play videos are filmed using emulators, simply because that is the easiest way of recording the game. recording directly from a console requires special hardware and some knowledge of what you are doing. Bear in mind, also, that emulators are completely legal, no matter what Nintendo want people to think. If I want to play any of my console games on an emulator, Nintendo has absolutely no right to stop me. What may be illegal is the ROM or the BIOS, which are not necessarily illegal, as it depends on how they were obtained. If they were ripped from an original by the person in question, then they are 100% legal in most western countries.

So, if I rip a ROM from my copy of Mario Kart, and play it on an emulator, I am 100% within the law and Nintendo has no right to say anything, because statute law overrides their EULA, and UK statute law says I am permitted to produce and possess a backup copy for my own use. If I downloaded the ROM from RomU or some other site, that is where it gets illegal, because I did not produce the backup myself. The emulator is still legal, however.

it's not naive to say Nintendo are being greedy; they ARE being greedy. Sure they put a lot of work into making the game. But what about the effort the LPer put into making the video? is that somehow not worthy of any compensation? The person chose to do a Nintendo game, they spent time and effort recording themselves playing the game, recording the speech track, adding effects and music, tiding the production up and producing it. Does that not entitle them to some share of the proceeds from that video? Morally, I think it does. Bear in mind that Nintendo probably already benefitted from that person buying their console and game, and will likely benefit from other people buying the game as a result of the LP video. The money made from monetisation isn't earth shattering for most people that do it, and Nintendo are basically telling their fans that they deserve no compensation for the effort they put into making these videos, and Nintendo deserves all of it.

If I was an LPer, I'd be hacked off with them too.

 

I did state that the LPers should be allow to benefit from their work, if and only if they had made legal purchase of the game/product they are making video review. In that sense, that's why if the LPer didn't, he/she shouldn't be entitled to monetize on his video work regardless of how much effort was put into it. Because if it wasn't of legally obtained (as yes, I know using emulator and self-back up rom of legally own copy is legal), then there's no right to monetize. In which case, I am more interested to hear from this topic's OP, does he or doesn't he have a physical copy of at least the game.

Despite some companies such as Nintendo maybe too arogant and selfish to allow even a little monetizing by its legal fans/user, the problem also should be viewed from what the host video site's policy stipulating such activity of sharing copyrighted items. Their view/policy on such act and whom are to benefit from it often lean more to the stronger party, in this case the copyright owner, despite them also benefiting from the LP. However, as you know, the weaker party will always loses. It's the hard fact law of nature.

 

I think that's also a bit extreme, but either way whether or not the game was obtained legally or not shouldn't come into it because there is simply no realistic means of verifying how the game was obtained.