PewDiePie Unsatisfied With Nintendo Partnership Program

MoreLess
By Sven Boonen – 1st February 2015
PewDiePie Unsatisfied With Nintendo Partnership Program

Many YouTubers, including PewDiePie, are unsatisfied with Nintendo’s new partnership program.

Nintendo recently announced that they will be starting a new partner program to share the profits made from advertisements with YouTubers, should they register their channel or video’s. Many YouTubers see this as a problem. Not because YouTubers get a share of the money, but because the other share goes to Nintendo.

“What Nintendo is missing out on completely,” stated the famous YouTuber Felix Kjellberg — better known as PewDiePie — through his tumblr-page, “is the free exposure and publicity that they get from YouTube and YouTubers. What better way to sell or market a game, than from watching someone else that you like playing it and enjoying themselves?”

Pewds used the story behind Minecraft‘s immense success as an example. Only one man — Markus “Notch” Persson — made that game, yet it blew up (no Creeper pun intended), partially thanks to the YouTube video’s many people made.

“I also think this is a slap in the face of the YouTube channels that focus on Nintendo game exclusively. The people who have helped and showed passion for Nintendo’s community are the ones left in the dirt the most,” Kjellberg continued.

PewDiePie isn’t the only YouTuber unsatisfied with this chance, though. Many others, including Ohmwrecker, Jim Sterling and TotalBiscuit shared their opinions with the world.

What do you think about Nintendo’s new partnership program? Let us know in the comments below! 

  • Typical

    It’s obviously a big company abusing their power to try to cash in on what is clearly fair use.

    • jashinslayer

      Nintendo’s games are not fair use. They belong to Nintendo.

      • Typical

        Using video for purposes of commentary and critique, and educational use, which is place how to’s into that is fair use. their ip rights don’t give them any claims on revenue generated by reviews, otherwise every film critic would have to pay the studio.

        • jashinslayer

          “Video” in this case is their product. Products are not fair use.
          Correct. Nintendo has no claim on revenue generated by REVIEWS. They DO have claim on revenue generated by VIDEO OF THEIR PRODUCTS. Movie studios allow critics to use their film footage, that is the movie studio’s product.
          If you want to make a review… make it, just don’t use any game or movie footage. If your precious review is so important on its own, then you don’t need it. I can make a review of Super Mario 3D World that doesn’t use a single clip or image from that game and post it on youtube right now, and Nintendo can’t do anything about it. However I do NOT have a right to use footage without their consent.

          • Typical

            Yes you do jackass, go read the DCMA. Their product is the game code and art, a video is a new derivative work, as is machinema. The only ambiguous language is “short clips” don’t be such a rabid fanboy, you’re wrong.

            http://www(dot)law.cornell(dot)edu/usc

            https://www(dot)eff(dot)org/issues/blo

            http://www(dot)dmca(dot)com/FAQ/Fair-U

            Maybe next time don’t talk out of your ass just because you’re a nintendo fan and believe they couldn’t ever be wrong.

          • jashinslayer

            You mean DMCA and “Short clips” is specifically what is being talked about. You getting upset and throwing insults won’t allow you to weasel out of the truth.

          • Typical

            The truth is you’re wrong and are now typo policing to try to seem smart. “”Video” in this case is their product. Products are not fair use.” Making a gameplay video to demonstrate play or to critique is exactly what he’s talking about, and is fair use.

            But please, come try to do some mental gymnastics to show how I misunderstood your completely wrong assertions.

          • jashinslayer

            Explain to me how “short clips” aren’t covered in the DMCA as being against fair use.

          • Typical

            here, since yo’re too stupid/lazy to follow a link, from the DCMA faq:

            There is a doctrine in the United States copyright law called “Fair Use” which allows people to use your content without your permission. Fair Use is now widely accepted in most countries around the world. It allows the limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the copyright owner. Items considered Fair Use would be commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.

          • jashinslayer

            Correct. So explain how NIntendo’s offer changes anything to youtubers trying to make money off NIntendo through “fair use”.

          • Typical

            Maybe you misread where I specifically called out commentary and teaching? and the part above where it says permission not needed?

            I mean, we’ve established you already don’t know what you’re talking about, but you can’t read either?

          • jashinslayer

            So how does Nintendo’s partnership program affect Youtubers making videos under fair use?

          • Typical

            The videos are fair use already. They are trying to create a partnership program to establish the narrative that those outside of the program are violating their copyrights and can be hit with take down notices. Because as we know, Youtub is so lax on their takedown policy that all of these you tuber’s videos are infringements.

          • jashinslayer

            According to the DMCA, their “narrative” doesn’t matter and fair use is protected by law. So either this is just rampant paranoia, youtube will have to violate their own rules to do it or youtubers are blatantly greedy.

          • Typical

            Unless Nintendo is giving these “partners” exclusive videos to use in exchange for a portion of the money, which no report I saw indicates, this is exactly what they’re trying to do. YouTube is very trigger happy with taking things down, and a lot of people will just give up rather than go through the appeal process every time. Nintendo knows this, they are using their clout to extort money from people providing something they never thought to. You can’t honestly not see the writing on the wall here.

          • jashinslayer

            This looks to be more targeted at Let’s Players, which is fine by me. I’ve never supported nor cared about talentless internet kiddies who try to make a living sponging off video game companies instead of doing something useful. If this helps to get rid of some of the horrendous gaggle of shitty Let’s Plays and “youtube celebs” on the internet, then thank goodness.

          • Typical

            Let’s Plays are fair use, they’re commentary and how to’s, which is teaching use.

            I agree only a tard would want to watch someone else play, other than to get a review of the game, but it doesn’t make them infringing.

          • jashinslayer

            If they post hours of video game footage, then that’s starting to violate the 3rd rule of fair use on Youtube:

            “3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
            Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.”
            Also:
            “Myth #3: “Entertainment” or “non-profit” uses are automatically fair use.”
            Seems like Let’s Plays aren’t necessarily covered.

          • Typical

            But let’s plays aren’t the same as posting hours of a movie, I coiuld post an hour of walking around in a circle in the starting area, and it’s not showing the work as a whole. In fact, as you are generating everything as it happens, rather than using prerecorded video, it’s actually a transformative work.

          • jashinslayer

            If you’re playing through a game, then you’re showing it off, that’s the purpose of a Let’s Play. If you can’t substantially prove you’re doing it for education or criticism and are showing off large portions of the content, then you’re violating fair use.

          • MementoMori

            You two should just get it over with and fuck already.
            You can cut the sexual tension with a knife.

          • Lecrazy

            Is your username based on Flyleaf?

          • Harry Ballzonya

            Ok I actually work in production so here are a few real life facts, all media outlets hate Youtube.
            all media outlets are moving in to start to shut down you tubers.
            If you are a recognized reviewer, then you received a reviewers package. This will have a copy of the game, some information about the game and company, and maybe some swag and tips. And yes if the distributer feels like you have a weak film/ show/ game then they will pay reviewers for a better review. (I know its horrible, its also capitalism and if you don’t like it China is that way.)
            If you are not a recognized reviewer, (i.e. the company recognizes and has registered you as a reviewer, you can’t just make a youtube page, call yourself a reviewer, and expect to get calls from distributers and producers.) then yes you are legally allowed to use clips and small bits from the product to showcase or satire. However, (and this is the crappy part), even then if we feel like it we can make your life miserable. See most reviewers don’t have the money to fight a producer, publisher, or distributer in court. We can just simply drag it out rack up the lawyer fees and wait for you to go under. I’ve seen this done with small indie companies as well. (they want a title some indie team is working on, due to the title being too similar to some project we have on the books. The indie team refuses to sell, so we take them to court over copyright infringement. We know we would loose in court, but we also know they can’t pay for a lawyer for the next 2 years. And so in the end we win by default.) Capitalism!
            So as for your above example, yes you could just post 2 hours of you walking in a circle at the beginning of a game. And we could still sue you for it, you would be in the right, but you wouldn’t be able to afford the 20K to 40K a year it would take to afford the attorney. And you don’t get a free attorney unless its a criminal case, copyright infringement is a civil case. Oh and during that entire time we will hit you with a “Cease and Desist” order, so you won’t be able to make any more videos about the subject while we are settling. After a few months of the full weight of a legal team on you, your highly likely to crack and just give us what we want so you can go back to living your life in peace.
            See ol Pewdiepie saw the potential of Youtube to more or less replace Cable Companies, or at the least, be able to compete with them. However, I think he is also starting to see that the big media companies also noticed that, and seeing how they couldn’t gain control over it, they will seek to destroy it. He may make 4 mill this year, but I seriously doubt he will continue to make that. And I know for a fact that he can’t fight Universal level money, or Warner Bros money.
            Also what crash are you talking about? I think you are confusing Sony and Nintendo. Nintendo is over 100 years old. They started by selling dominos, (the game not the pizza). They literally have so much money they could stop selling everything and still be able to function as a corporate entity for the next 40 years. Nintendo is like Samsung, going to be around for quite a while unless they decide to sell in the future.

          • Typical

            Essentially this: thanks for using your real world knowledge to say much more clearly what I’m getting at. Nintendo is giving people an out and when they don’t play ball, they’ll crush them and use “but we had a method to be fair about this” in court. I’m referring to the video game crash of 1983. I’m quite aware of nintendo’s history as a playing card maker, I have the books, however, they weren’t making game systems until AFTER the crash, and they are the ones that actually saved the hobby. Atari at one time had more money than god, and when the Video Game market crashed, they never really recovered. Nintendo doesn’t make much outside of games and some pokemon cards right? so when no one wants games and they go down to 50 cents on store shelves and still can’t be sold, and this goes on for years, how much are they going to be able to operate on selling games related merch?

            At least Sony and MS have other markets and gaming is a very small part of their business plans.

          • Harry Ballzonya

            Actually Nintendo is very involved in Japans government. And they make a lot more products than you think, you just don’t see them because your not in Japan. As for the gaming industry going heads up, I don’t see that happening. I had forgotten about the crash of 83, however, that was a different story. Back then less than 18% of american households had a gaming system, (atari or commodore), now its different. Gaming was considered a fad and a curiosity back then, as was the computer.

            Now I get what your saying about Sony and MS having streaming and that the concept of “disks” will fade out. I agree with you, physical copies will be a collectors item. Most games will be direct to download. However, I seriously doubt Nintendo isn’t aware of this trend and isn’t planning on releasing a new platform sometime in the near future.

            The gaming industry is massive, $9.5 billion in the US in 2007, 11.7 billion in 2008, and 25.1 billion in 2010, and thats just in America. Personally I work in the film industry, but time and time again I look at the numbers and think, “maybe I should be producing games not movies.” And I’m not the only one, more and more people I used to work with on sets are now making the shift to work on video games. And thats changing the game companies as well, making them more like film companies. Which is both a good thing and a terrible thing at the same time. Good in the fact that games will start having a higher level of production, bad in the fact that with those people come the attitudes, ruthlessness, and win at all costs mentality that we are known so well for.

            Personally I like Youtube, however, I also understand that in a way it is a competitor. And its not a normal competitor like Touchstone, or Lionsgate. Its an internet competitor and most companies look at the web as a sort of nearly lawless wild west. So I can understand the various media companies would really like to see Youtube either shut down entirely or change to become a paid to watch site. I mean heck Hulu is and was the response by NBC/FOX/and a few others, and even then they still fight with it, even thought its on our side. As you can imagine it can be frustrating to watch.

          • jashinslayer

            In my opinion, game companies should have the right to snipe and take down any video containing any of their game whatsoever. They made it.

          • Typical

            well, as we’re freely admitting now it’s opinion, and since there’s no clearly worder case law about let’s play’s (yet). I would assert that this is not something they “made”. they made the assets used, but the video, being generated by the user, belongs to the user, it’s like my family photos of cinderella’s castle at Disneyworld are my copyright, not Disney’s.

          • jashinslayer

            That’s extremely disingenuous and dishonest.
            People watch the video because of it contains Gears of War, not because FatMoron998 is screeching over it. If someone films an entire movie, the bootlegger doesn’t own that movie, they’re a rip-off artist.
            Also, you aren’t selling you Disneyland photos. If you start to, THEN you have a problem.

          • Typical

            I’m not being dishonest or disingenuous. People MUST be watching them to see pewdipie or whatever, or he wouldn’t be the most wildly successful let’s player. You can’ freely sell your Disneyland photos, as they’re of a building viewable from public areas, even though Disney owns the building.

            What you are suggesting is that basically every fan made video online should be shut down or have to pay licensing fees, did you support warner for suing the lady who posted her baby dancing to a prince song? If I put my family movie at disney on vacation on a ad revenue generating you tube page, do I owe them money too? Again, this is Machinema, you aren’t filming a scripted movie and bootlegging it, you are creating the content as you play it, it’s a transformative work.

          • jashinslayer

            I thought that dumb swede kid did other shit before switching to gaming videos. Regardless, he’s more of a fluke and anomaly, but it’s foolish to think he would be anywhere near as popular if he wasn’t ripping off game content.
            Yeah the Disney photo thing seems logical since you can’t copyright a building I don’t think, regardless, profiting off of others is messed up.
            No clue what you’re talking about, but yeah I would defend Warner, she shouldn’t have used that song. Should have used something not copyrighted.
            I feel “transformative work” is only valid when you are adding artistic and valuable content that could probably stand on it’s own without whatever it is that it’s based off of. A canvas maker’s work is valuable and useful, but people don’t go to museums for the canvases, they come for the art.

          • Typical

            So when recording an impromptu video of your kids, you better make sure you go online and license the work immediately? Games are not paintings, how is it different than robot chicken? they used someone else’s trademarks and had a few seasons of it too. If I record myself building legos, am I violating copyright? Nintendo is setting up to create a chilling effect here.

            Where do you want to stop? Are unboxing videos beholden to pay apple a licensing fee?

            How about if I post myself eating a banana, do I owe Dole? I guess Jay-z and Beyonce should owe the Louvre some compensation for their picture of the Mona Lisa right?

            Warner Bros claims ownership of the happy birthday song, if I record my kid’s party and post it online, should I pay warner for singing it?

            Where is your line? Am I allowed to have the TV on when I film home movies? what about the contractor who built my house, that’s his art, does he deserve a cut? It’s getting ridiculous with people claiming ownership of things on the internet, it’s no different than the patent abuse that’s basically “take something we’ve done for decades, now do it on a computer.”

          • jashinslayer

            Shitting out dozens of poor analogies and false examples won’t make stealing any less erroneous.
            If you want to make money off something, make sure it is as much YOUR OWN work as possible. If people object to the copyrighted materials within it, be prepared to remove them and let the work stand on it’s own. Games are art. Don’t steal others’ art for your own purposes.

          • Typical

            Games aren’t art, but that’s another discussion. It’s not stealing either, it must be hard for you to go through such a black and white world, where you are constantly worried about copyright violation. Am I allowed to draw mario and sell my art? again, where is your line?

          • jashinslayer

            Ask Nintendo, he’s their character. If you draw MY characters and intend to sell your art, I’ll have to look at what you’ve drawn, how you’re selling it, how large your audience is etc. before I make a decision. You see, people OWN what they make, THEY make the decisions.
            If you’re so worried about this, I suggest you take up a career in copyright law so you can be completely sure when it’s okay for artists to get ripped off.

          • Typical

            What about videos showing glitches, what’s your stance on those? guess I better not point out a game glitch because it’s their art.

            What’s your copyright law background that allows you to speak from such a position of authority?

          • jashinslayer

            Are you critiquing it? How long is the video? What’s the purpose of the video? Are you monetizing it? I need details to make a decision.

            When did I say I had a professional background in copyright law? I’m expressing my opinions and what I feel is correct to do based on reasoning.

          • Typical

            I’m not doing anything, because frankly I have better things to do with my time, and have no illusions about people wanting to watch me crash into a tree in my far Cry wingsuit. (oh wait, was using the name a violation?)

            Funny that so many porn movies are made with licensed superheroes and Disney hasn’t crushed them like bugs.

            As I understand it, if you are speaking about what’s happening while playing a game, it’s a critique, and you should be free to critique the entire thing.

            If I say hey! check out this cool game and proceed to play the whole first level, I’ve just critiqued it.

            Anyone who would watch a game video instead of play it probably wouldn’t buy it anyway, unless the video showed them how crap it was, in which case, it’s an informative public service.

          • jashinslayer

            All of that shit is irrelevant. You aren’t giving specifics.
            The choice belongs in the hands of those who made the game.
            You can’t take that away no matter how hard you try.

          • Typical

            Yeah, I guess you’re probably right, monetizing it does add another layer of complexity, this is why the laws are shitty as written. there needs to be an ability to critique, comment on, and even make instructional videos, and the language needs to set exactly what the limits are, at what point it’s infringing, I don’t believe a game is the same a s a movie, because the movie is a passive experience, and outside of maybe metal gear, you aren’t buying the game to watch passively, but to interact. Watching someone play is not the experience they’re selling.

          • Typical

            here’s another explanation:

            http://fairusetube(dot)org/guide-to-youtube-removals/3-deciding-if-video-is-fair-use

            Video game walkthroughs and tutorials with commentary

            Even though video games are copyrighted, it is now a widely accepted practice on YouTube to post walkthroughs and tutorials (“let’s plays”). Both the player’s original commentary and the fact that their gameplay creates a unique subjective experience with the game make the use transformative. As long as you include your own original commentary about the game and don’t just post straight raw footage from the game, it is likely fair use. It is possible that even un-commented gameplay is still fair use, though this is less certain.

            Again, something that should clearly be covered under fair use, companies are using ambiguous wording to try to extort money from, since it never occurred to them to make these videos and now they want a piece of the pie.

  • jashinslayer

    1. Only idiots care about what some worthless youtuber thinks.
    2. Nintendo’s products are their own, they decide what is done with them.
    3. Nintendo decides where and how their games are advertised, not talentless teenagers on a video sharing site.
    4. Long after youtube is dead and replaced with a better video sharing site, Nintendo will still be here producing iconic video games just as they have for over 30 years.

    • Typical

      1. the worthless youtuber makes 4 million a year, loser, he is actually exactly the type of person to comment on this.

      2. Their products are not their own as it applies to fair use, which commentary and instructional videos fall under, any more than a farmner can dictate how you eat his crops.

      3. No, they, don’t. you sound like a talentless teenager fanboy crybaby with these posts.

      4. I’d bet you’re wrong, a video game crash nearly wiped out the industry before, and could again, sharing family videos and companies having a direct video distribution to fans is a much safer bet for longevity.

      back to your bridge, troll.

      • jashinslayer

        1. Making money doesn’t give someone worth. I can make tens of thousands of dollars a month selling illegal drugs. That doesn’t make me valuable or useful.
        2. Clips and materials from their products are their products. There are no copyright laws on vegetables, false equivalence/very poor analogy.
        3. Yes they do actually. It’s their company, people can say whatever they want and advertise indirectly, however Nintendo decides all official endorsements and placements. Please explain how they do not.
        4. Yes because youtube has existed for 30 years.
        Calling someone a troll just shows how frustrated and confused you are by someone talking above you.

        • Typical

          1. it’d make you a resource to someone seeking coment on drug trade though, are you really this stupid, or do you think moving goalposts will work?

          2. No, the clips are not their products, again, I linked the law, you show me where it says the opposite of what it says as you’re claiming, and you can call me stupid too.

          3. No one said youtube is an official endorsement, straw manning doesn’t work either.

          4. again, another crash could kill nintendo, online video sharing is a much more stable platform. I guess Atari is a safer bet since they were selling video games before nintendo.

          troll.

          • jashinslayer

            1. Worth, noun, of usefulness, merit, or excellence. The king of youtube morons is not useful, meritorious or excellence. I did not move the goalpost, you just fail to comprehend all the meanings of simple words. You’re free to get angrier though.

            2. Copyrighted material is their work.
            3. What do YOU think advertising is exactly? Who else would I have been talking about?
            4. Call me when Nintendo goes under.

            You’re very upset. Try to calm down.

          • Typical

            I’m not upset, I’m just trying to educate you, but you’ve made it fin to prove you wrong.

          • jashinslayer

            Sure thing kid. Come back when you actually have an argument, it’s fun watching you swear, fling insults, and get angry then deny it.

          • Typical

            Or, I can stay here and keep linking stuff proving you wrong. I like the kid though, trying to dismiss what I say by (quite incorrectly I assure you) implying I’m a kid absolves you from showing proof of your incorrect claims? That might work in your imagination, but not the real world.

          • jashinslayer

            Uhh huh.

    • chickensushi

      The irony is that Nintendo has a higher chance of becoming irrelevant before Youtube does.