Nintendo to Start Collecting Ad Revenue on "Let's Play" Videos Using Its Content

[dave is ok]

OPA DENDI

[bVork]

Meanwhile, this is how the makers of the best game of 2012 act:

[Melf]

That's awesome.

[bbobb]

Makers of the best game of 2012?

[Space Pirate Roberts]

It was a pretty weak year. My pick would be Borderlands 2, and even that's not that good.

[bVork]

Crusader Kings II is GOTY 2012. No contest. You all should play it.

[MechDeus]

It was a pretty weak year.

For the Wonderswan, sure. There was a ton of great stuff for the modern systems.

[Joust Williams]

Paradox made Max Payne 3? Wow, what a huge budget for a small studio

never going to play that, it is probably broken in 50 ways if bvork likes it

[gameoverDude]

We encourage our users to make videos using Valve game content, such as playthrough or instruction videos or SFM movies. We are fine with publishing these videos to your website or YouTube or similar video sharing services. We're not fine with taking assets from our games (e.g. voice, music, items) and distributing those separately.

You are free to monetize your videos via the YouTube partner program and similar programs on other video sharing sites. Please don't ask us to write YouTube and tell them its fine with us to post a particular video using Valve content. It's not possible to respond to each such request. Point them to this page.

Great policy. Valve > Nintendo. Is Nintendo's ploy a quick cash grab after the relatively disappointing sales of Wii U?

I've had a "matched third party content" autoflag notification on my Rolling Thunder 2 arcade no-miss play @ Youtube, but Namco hasn't seemed to really give even 1/10 of a damn. This is all gameplay, with no commentary track or other bullshit. I'm with Chux on not talking over the game, and reserve the right to annotate occasionally. While I have found several LPs to be entertaining, there are some that give me more of a "Shut! UP!" vibe.

[DJ Incompetent]

heh, I'm high on the leaderboard for copyright violations

A copyright claim for ads will disable your vid from """mobile""" which is iOS, Android, WP, and topbox streamers. My google analytics tells me about 40% of viewers try to watch my vids on "mobile"

A copyright flag is just Google's Content ID system automatically identifying something (like the audio-visual equivalent to Shazam & Soundhound) and using the stock response from the company it's violating. You can dispute these claims and submit some stock legal-sounding bullshit about the fair use act. This gives the company a month for a human to actually look at its own claim. Some companies will accept this and back off; others won't. None of the companies I've disputed against let the verification deadline expire. The companies who have replied to my dispute immediately all rejected my bullshit claims. The people who waited a few weeks to review my claim accepted my claim.

About 60% of my videos were disabled or muted from Content ID claims 2009-2011. The scene has relaxed a lot nowadays, and now about 2% of my vids are currently disabled from claims, adding ads and banning me from a few countries instead. Most of my vids are banned in Germany for some reason.

The general rule is don't fuck with Viacom unless you're gonna desync audio, reverse the image, and run other distortion shenanigans to battle Content ID identification. The new thing to reconsider remixing is the small youtube-only viral sensations like Autotune the News, Epic Rap Battles of History, etc.; anyone just big enough to set up their own Content ID operations. Their bannings are harsher and worldwide. However, I have been able to dispute all claims from small time youtube sensations and win.