Angry Joe Rips Nintendo's Anti-Youtuber Policies

[The Fukin Prophecy]

if I buy a guitar from Gibson, and go make a hit record with it, do I owe Gibson any money besides what I paid for the guitar?

A guitar is used by musicians to make music...

A video game is used to make? an "angry" review video?

Great analogy...

 

[daze23]

A guitar is used by musicians to make music...

A video game is used to make? an "angry" review video?

Great analogy...

if a DJ buys records, and gets paid a lot to spin at clubs, does that DJ owe the record company any extra money?

 

[GoldenGlove]

I remember when Joe got sonned by Geoff Keighley during an interview.

 

[The Fukin Prophecy]

if a DJ buys records, and gets paid a lot to spin at clubs, does that DJ owe the record company any extra money?

In the USA and Canada those clubs (venues) are required by law to have a license for the DJ to spin those records or they would both be held liable. That license membership costs money...Nowhere in the video game EULA or whatever does it state angry Jose has the right to make advertising money off the products he is purchasing...

The proper analogy for you here is game console maker and game developer. Not game developer versus...angry game player? I don't even know what Jose is...

A developer signs a licensing agreement to make a video game for a console. In that agreement the console maker gets a percentage of the profits. Some of these youtubers have agreements like this with game developers/console manufacturers thus what they're doing is perfectly legal...

 

[winb83]

I'm not taking sides here, this is business 101...

Why the fukk would any sensible businessman let someone make 100% profit off his product?
That doesn't make any sense to anybody with any sort of business acumen...

Nintendo's product isn't Angry Joe playing a video game. Nintendo's product is the game itself. Angry Joe bought that game. He compensated them for their product. He bought the system, capture device, computer, and all the other equipment he needed to create that video and he spent time making it as well as his commentary being on it.

The question is who owns the video he produced? According to YouTube corporate policies Nintendo owns it. According to the law? We don't know who owns it because the law has never weighed in on the issue. I will say this Nintendo claiming because their software is featured in the video if it generates any money on an ad based video site they're entitled to all that money is bullshyt.

 

[KushSkywalker]

Nintendo's product isn't Angry Joe playing a video game. Nintendo's product is the game itself. Angry Joe bought that game. He compensated them for their product. He bought the system, capture device, computer, and all the other equipment he needed to create that video and he spent time making it as well as his commentary being on it.

The question is who owns the video he produced? According to YouTube corporate policies Nintendo owns it. According to the law? We don't know who owns it because the law has never weighed in on the issue. I will say this Nintendo claiming because their software is featured in the video if it generates any money on an ad based video site they're entitled to all that money is bullshyt.

What if he recorded himself reacting to a movie like mysterious science theater?

Serious question, does the same grey area apply?

 

[The Fukin Prophecy]

Nintendo's product isn't Angry Joe playing a video game. Nintendo's product is the game itself. Angry Joe bought that game. He compensated them for their product. He bought the system, capture device, computer, and all the other equipment he needed to create that video and he spent time making it as well as his commentary being on it.

The question is who owns the video he produced? According to YouTube corporate policies Nintendo owns it. According to the law? We don't know who owns it because the law has never weighed in on the issue. I will say this Nintendo claiming because their software is featured in the video if it generates any money on an ad based video site they're entitled to all that money is bullshyt.

It's Nintendo's product he is trying to review correct?

If Jose goes to court over this he will lose and he knows that...

Why? because he doesn't have any agreement with Nintendo to use their prodcuts in his videos...

This isn't rocket science...

 

[Zero]

If Youtube is your sole source of income, you lost. I don't give a shyt how much money you're supposedly making unless you're PewDiePie levels of popular.

Soon as Youtube or whoever changes their policy, these motherfukkers make these videos crying like bytches.

Get a traditional 9-5 and do this shyt on the side because it's embarrassing more often than not.

 

[winb83]

What if he recorded himself reacting to a movie like mysterious science theater?

Serious question, does the same grey area apply?

Why would it? A movie isn't an interactive piece of software. Him recording himself reacting to a movie actually includes the entire end product of the movie industry in the video and as a result would directly damage their sales.

You buy video games to experience them by play them right? That experience isn't encapsulated in him playing a game on video or reviewing it. Like I've been saying a video game is a piece of computer software. If a person films themselves typing up a book and uploads that videos to YouTube and it goes on to produce billions in ad revenue by going viral you better believe the company that made that software is gonna want a piece of that but the question is are they entitled to any of it?

 

[Fatboi1]

What is a cac then?

Angry Joe.

Spanish speaking white guy.

 

[winb83]

If Youtube is your sole source of income, you lost. I don't give a shyt how much money you're supposedly making unless you're PewDiePie levels of popular.

Soon as Youtube or whoever changes their policy, these motherfukkers make these videos crying like bytches.

Get a traditional 9-5 and do this shyt on the side because it's embarrassing more often than not.

I'm pretty sure some of these guys are making $50K - 60K + a year making videos on YouTube. Why get a traditional job in the face of that when you'd have to work harder at a real job and it might not be something you love doing.

The real issue is this YouTube personality thing has a shelf-life to it. They ain't gonna be doing this at 50+ years old. Either they better be smart with their money or looking for their next move.

Angry Joe.

Spanish speaking white guy.

but he's not white...

 

[Fatboi1]

I'm pretty sure some of these guys are making $50K - 60K + a year making videos on YouTube. Why get a traditional job in the face of that when you'd have to work harder at a real job and it might not be something you love doing.

The real issue is this YouTube personality thing has a shelf-life to it. They ain't gonna be doing this at 50+ years old. Either they better be smart with their money or looking for their next move.

but he's not white...

El no es Dominicano papi.

Seriously though, that 'hispanic' moniker is a bunch of bullshyt to me.

What's next?

This guy can hide behind the hispanic moniker?

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

Joe is hispanic tho....

That doesn't make him white, how?

 

[NZA]

joe seems like a jackass, but legally he is probably protected. it's already established that content can be used for journalism, analytical criticism, and review. the problem is of course that none of these dudes has the money or resolve to really take major corporations to court.

keep in mind that the movie and book review industry already settled this stuff, and major outlets like IGN dont get messed with not because they have permission, but because they are backed by major media groups.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

El no es Dominicano papi.

Seriously though, that 'hispanic' moniker is a bunch of bullshyt to me.

What's next?

This guy can hide behind the hispanic moniker?