Okay it's Monday, let's tackle probably one of the most controversial issues from last night's show. LOKI and I got into a bit of a debate on this (though as always, it was spirited but
respectful- as all debates on OLR & VOG should be okaaaaay?
)
So the day after last night's show, I'm still sort of in the same mindset that I was during the broadcast when it comes to Nintendo and Let's Play... and I say this as someone who has done a Let's Play for a Nintendo game and had it flagged (I simply didn't monetize it because I personally have maybe made three dollars off of youtube in my lifetime)
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion that a Let's Player created 100% of a Let's Play video simply because there is witty or insightful commentary over the video, and perhaps a camera taking up a portion of the screen. Without the game and the people who made it, there is simply no basis for the video to have been created and profited on in the first place. If Nintendo wants a cut, I think they are deserving of a cut.
However, at the same token, I'm also not okay saying Nintendo owns 100% of that video. For some of those youtube videos that is simply nothing but a screen grab with no additional content provided by the livestreamer maybe you can argue Nintendo deserves 100%, but otherwise it's the reverse of what I said above. Without the personalities of the Let's Players, the video isn't maybe as appealing for somebody to watch.
I used the analogy last night of an episode of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, where yes the talented folks behind the show really do deserve the lions share of the credit, however they still have a legal obligation to license the movies that they are going to skewer on their show. This of course unless said movies have entered the public domain, which I think is how some Elvira specials (a similar type of show) has been done.
Marissa in chat brought up another analogy about the fact that music still has to be licensed as well when you use it in TV shows and other productions. I think this is also a great analogy. Consider a clip like this one:
Sorry for the potential spoiler on a show I doubt many of you will watch if you haven't by now. Despite however you feel about these sorts of teen dramas, this moment was an iconic moment in television... okay maybe Critical Myth will debate me on that ha ha but humor me here. It was iconic enough that it went on to be parodied on Saturday Night Live and so on.
Did Imogen Heap sell extra albums because of this television moment? Absolutely. She benefited from the promotion just like Nintendo benefits from people playing Smash Brothers on youtube. Did the O.C. benefit from this as well too though? Yes, for sure... like I mentioned above, this was a "water cooler" scene that had lots of people talking when it aired, which in turn is ratings and awareness for the show and potential DVD/Streaming revenue down the line. Mute the clip and watch it again, it's not quite as impactful. The music helped the scene and the scene helped the music.
MY POINT IS, there is a mutualness that goes on between a Let's Play and the gaming companies that benefits each other. It's not soley one or the other that makes a successful video.
Some companies, especially those that want a little extra help getting their games out there and seen by people, have chosen to say "Okay, you can stream my game and keep all the revenue that's fine!" that's cool, that's their choice, and it will incentivise people to stream that particular video game. However I'm not so sure that Nintendo is a villain or bad guy just because they want their fair share.
Not that I think Nintendo is free of problem in this scenario. I will admit LOKI made a good point on the show when he pointed out that with a system like this, YouTube is getting a cut, then PayPal is getting a cut, there's a lot of middle men getting paid that maybe don't need to be involved in this relationship. Certianly it's not easy for an independent YouTube producer to go out and license things with Nintendo directly, and Nintendo's legal department doesn't have the capacity for that, but is this rather complex system necessary? Or is it just yet another hurdle that makes Nintendo look like the bad guy because everyone's having to jump it? Simplicity, people, simplicity.
Now one more point I want to get out before I turn it over to you guys for your thoughts, but I think the problem in this scenario lies not with Nintendo, and not with the Let's Player. I think the company that needs to be tasked with finding a *common ground* solution for *all* let's play streams is the one that's making the *most* money in this scenario..... YOUTUBE. After all, Youtube is the one selling the ads and the ones that set up this program that so many people want to take advantage of in the first place. Wouldn't it be great if YouTube could set some standards by licensing with the "big 3" Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, which other companies would then have a standard to base their own decisions off of. I mean, if YouTube won't do it because it's too much of a Robot and doesn't seem to be able to get live human beings to look at copyright strikes disputes or anything along those lines, maybe someone else can. YouTube could use a little competition and if a company like Twitch or some other bubbling under competitior can come up with this solution first that makes it easy/convienent for both the Let's Player and the Gaming company, then GREAT.
But YouTube... it's a mess, and they need to sort things out. As a final point of that, the above video that I linked from the OC, it's been viewed 1.9 million times. It's monetized. I see no notices (when viewing from my mobile anyway) that FOX or Imogen Heap's record label is getting any of the profit. YouTube is making all the money with this fan or whoever uploaded the scene and thought to pocket a few dollars in the process as people were viewing it.
