Do You Have Any Unpopular Gaming Opinions?

[DinnerX]

Not really, but I don't think creative value is the issue. I simply don't think that morally Nintendo owns every combination of images and noise a game can possibly produce. Similarly I don't think Gibson owns every sound one of their guitars can make.

Ok I agree on this. It's just that I think that people who do let's plays themselves shouldn't complain.

If this happened to video reviewers, video walkthroughs/guides, or anything that takes effort, I would be very much against nintendo.

I guess I just don't have sympathy for people wanting to get payed for something that should be done for free out of enjoyment. Specially since it takes zero effort (once you have the proper equipment I guess)

I see what you're saying. On the upside, the same foundation that allows the let's players to complain protects the other stuff we like more as well.

[ZeoDefender]

If this happened to video reviewers, video walkthroughs/guides, or anything that takes effort, I would be very much against nintendo.

This is a terrible argument. Absolutely terrible. Compensation isn't based upon effort. Compensation is based upon the perceived value of the work in question by the audience who consumes the work. Arguing that someone deserves to lose money for a service they're providing despite being in the legal right is absolutely ridiculous and mean-spirited.

Also, Let's Plays take more work than you think.

[Retronomy]

Copyrights have nothing to do with morality. They exist solely to serve the owner of the intellectual property. That said, Fair Use requires many things, and it's ambiguous nature can mean very different interpretations, but two major points that are unmistakable:
The work must be transformative/derivative in nature.
The work must non-profit.

And it's the latter of which a lot of these let's players mess up on. Personally I would have no problems with these people making money from their hobby, but I also firmly believe copyright law is the devil.

Edit:
Also, for the usage of sound bits and images from games, the current state of things is whatever the judge wants it to be, or whoever has a superior legal team.

The reality, though, is that the actual visual output by itself is irrelevant. It's ultimately the software itself that is copywrighted. Other aspects can be trademarked, and the music can also be copywritten, as well as the scenario, but the law right now is kind of shoveling interactive media in the same field as movies and that just doesn't work.

[o.pwuaioc]

The work must non-profit.

But they're not making money on the product. They're making money on advertising. I do think there's a distinct difference, although the law may disagree with me.

[Krejlooc]

The work must non-profit.

But they're not making money on the product. They're making money on advertising. I do think there's a distinct difference, although the law may disagree with me.

It must be non-profit, because you don't own the licensing rights to a central component of your product. How can you therefore assume that it's legal to make advertising licensing agreements for a product whose licensing rights you do not own? And, no, you can't divvy up piece of your product, i.e. "I am not selling advertising rights for THIS part of my video, not that part!"

[o.pwuaioc]

The work must non-profit.

But they're not making money on the product. They're making money on advertising. I do think there's a distinct difference, although the law may disagree with me.

It must be non-profit, because you don't own the licensing rights to a central component of your product. How can you therefore assume that it's legal to make advertising licensing agreements for a product whose licensing rights you do not own? And, no, you can't divvy up piece of your product, i.e. "I am not selling advertising rights for THIS part of my video, not that part!"

You can't, but you're not making advertisement revenue for the video, you're making it for the page.

[Krejlooc]

You can't, but you're not making advertisement revenue for the video, you're making it for the page.

you mean the page which includes the video which includes the a central component of which you don't own the licensing rights to?

Let me rephrase this then:

And, no, you can't divvy up piece of your product, i.e. "I am not selling advertising rights for THIS part of my page, not that part!"

[DinnerX]

The work must non-profit.

That isn't quite true. Section 107 of the U.S. copyright law just says the commercial or noncommercial nature of the use is something to take into consideration when deciding if a use constitutes fair use.

EDIT: And here it is in all it's glory.

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[o.pwuaioc]

Why not? Are you telling me that a teacher shouldn't monetize a blog which offers free copyrighted educational resources, free otherwise on account of fair use, as part of a larger website which also offers other things?

I don't get why not. I don't see a point in why not.

Besides, it's a game. Apart from the cinematic scenes, it has to be manipulated to be viewed (unlike movies or songs which play out all on their own without user input). The point of a game is to play, not to watch, so how does watching this violate the spirit of copyright? How is any of this morally offensive?

[ZeroAX]

This is a terrible argument. Absolutely terrible. Compensation isn't based upon effort. Compensation is based upon the perceived value of the work in question by the audience who consumes the work. Arguing that someone deserves to lose money for a service they're providing despite being in the legal right is absolutely ridiculous and mean-spirited.

Also, Let's Plays take more work than you think.

And my perceived value of their work is the same as my nickname (see what I did there?).

Excuse me but you will find that Nintendo specifically copyrights all music and graphics in its games too (it is mentioned at the end of every Nintendo game since the GBA days from what I remember), so it probably has the legal rights to do this.

Yeah well I don't really care. This world is a pretty unfair place. There are a bunch of people who are doing real GOOD for humanity who get payed a LOT less than they deserve (scientists, doctors volunteering in Africa, ect. ect.), and I don't get worked up for them, so why should I get worked up for the people who's dream/job is to sit and play video games all day?

The last part is something people accuse video game reviewers, developers and testers of, when it really just isn't true. But for let's play videos, it just is. People who have the technical knowhow and equipment can publish as many videos as they can make in a day. I mean they don't have to edit videos. And don't tell me that the people doing them have to do research about the game they are playing, because all the stuff I hear from them are stuff you will find on the game's wikipedia stage.