Posted May 17, 2013
You are aware that you DO need a license to make commercial use of someone else's IP, right? Movies can't just use whatever trademark they want, even TV brands need to be licensed if they appear in some scenes. If someone decides to make money by making videos while driving a Porsche, then yes, it's IP infringement, unless they get the license from Porsche.
orcishgamer: "Making money off of someone else's work" is a frequent justification for some pretty poorly thought out arguments. We have a metric fuckton of time honored American professions that do just the same, including much of entertainment journalism. There are people, in fact, who get paid to do nothing but analyze the work of a specific artist for Freya's sake! Furthermore, if people want to pay me because they think I'm hot shit when I race a Porsche around a track that doesn't entitle Porsche to that money even though one could argue more human effort, design, and expense went into that car than my use of it.
And even then, the car analogy doesn't quite work here. You have to be careful when making comparisons between material and immaterial goods because they're naturally different. You can't really "experience" a material good just by watching a video on Youtube. But you can experience a movie, a song, a book, or a game (to a smaller scale). So no, your analogy is far from being accurate in this case.
We all know that today's games are pretty scripted and story-driven, so yeah, you can get PART of the experience by watching a Let's Play. Look carefully, i'm NOT saying that playing the game is the same as watching it, but i think that IT IS possible to get part of entertainment for free by watching a LP video depending on how scripted, linear or story-driven a game is.
I did watch it. His arguments are pretty solid, but i still don't agree with him. I don't quite agree with the notion that "since you're the one playing it, you're free to do whatever you want with it".
orcishgamer: But if that doesn't sway you (and I suspect it won't) you should still watch that TotalBiscuit video Hessusio linked, because he effectively deconstructs the notion you're suggesting in a way that I cannot.
How exactly is Nintendo being morally wrong? The simple fact that we are discussing this subject is enough to prove that "morals" don't really apply here. There needs to be at least a mininum acceptance for something to be considered a moral issue. Do you mean Nintendo is morally wrong for charging money for unauthorized use of their IPs?
orcishgamer: Nintendo is not only morally wrong on this one they're actually cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Nintendo didn't even block LP videos, they will just get some revenue from the ads. In my opinion LP videos should be done out of good-will, not to make money. In case a LPer does get money just by playing a game and making silly comments i see nothing wrong with the publishers/developers getting a chunk of the money for the IP he's using to make money.
Post edited May 17, 2013 by Neobr10