What did everyone think of the latest Jimquisition?

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I'm not going to defend him on that. As much of a dickhead Nintendo has been, I don't agree on using piracy as a mean of revenge. In the worst case, I prefer not to buy, period.

OT: It seems Jim can't even sound humorous about this matter. Nintendo is not only poking the bear with a stick, it's whacking the cubs with a baseball bat in front of the mother bear. I mean there's a breaking point when even intelligent, witty thinkers like Jim will say 'f it all' and give them the death stare. It's gotten to the point freaken Angry Joe might in fact bring Nintendo to court if they try to shut down his future reviews for any upcoming Nintendo games because they're violating Fair Use laws.

I want to like Nintendo, I want to say they're the good guys. Not anymore, not after what they did to Youtube LP'ers and their trigger-happy copyright claiming spree despite people were doing em a favor by spreading good word about their games.

Nintendo has shut down none of AJ's videos. They were marked with content ID, and kept the ad revenue for them. AJ preferred to give a big FU and remove the video than to let them have any more money.

So basically youtubers are just doing this for the money. And the whole gamer/consumer advocacy is actually secondary?

 

[balladbird]

Definitely not his best episode, I'll concede. Whether you love him or hate him, there's no denying that, speaking generally, Jim is a pretty witty guy, so when he opens a video with a declaration like this week's title, I expected a pretty clever payoff to it, but the end result was largely just a vent of frustration.

I don't disagree with him about nintendo, and understand his pretty valid reasons for being frustrated, but this week's episode felt like an intense setup with an underwhelming payoff... something, something sex joke.

 

[hermes]

I'm not going to defend him on that. As much of a dickhead Nintendo has been, I don't agree on using piracy as a mean of revenge. In the worst case, I prefer not to buy, period.

OT: It seems Jim can't even sound humorous about this matter. Nintendo is not only poking the bear with a stick, it's whacking the cubs with a baseball bat in front of the mother bear. I mean there's a breaking point when even intelligent, witty thinkers like Jim will say 'f it all' and give them the death stare. It's gotten to the point freaken Angry Joe might in fact bring Nintendo to court if they try to shut down his future reviews for any upcoming Nintendo games because they're violating Fair Use laws.

I want to like Nintendo, I want to say they're the good guys. Not anymore, not after what they did to Youtube LP'ers and their trigger-happy copyright claiming spree despite people were doing em a favor by spreading good word about their games.

Nintendo has shut down none of AJ's videos. They were marked with content ID, and kept the ad revenue for them. AJ preferred to give a big FU and remove the video than to let them have any more money.

So basically youtubers are just doing this for the money. And the whole gamer/consumer advocacy is actually secondary?

Wait, you are telling me that people expect to get money out of doing their job?

Or is it that being remunerated automatically means nothing matters and anything goes?

Because I am having a hard time following your logic that people shouldn't complain about work conditions and things/people that make their job harder just because they earn money out of it.

 

[CaitSeith]

I'm not going to defend him on that. As much of a dickhead Nintendo has been, I don't agree on using piracy as a mean of revenge. In the worst case, I prefer not to buy, period.

OT: It seems Jim can't even sound humorous about this matter. Nintendo is not only poking the bear with a stick, it's whacking the cubs with a baseball bat in front of the mother bear. I mean there's a breaking point when even intelligent, witty thinkers like Jim will say 'f it all' and give them the death stare. It's gotten to the point freaken Angry Joe might in fact bring Nintendo to court if they try to shut down his future reviews for any upcoming Nintendo games because they're violating Fair Use laws.

I want to like Nintendo, I want to say they're the good guys. Not anymore, not after what they did to Youtube LP'ers and their trigger-happy copyright claiming spree despite people were doing em a favor by spreading good word about their games.

Nintendo has shut down none of AJ's videos. They were marked with content ID, and kept the ad revenue for them. AJ preferred to give a big FU and remove the video than to let them have any more money.

So basically youtubers are just doing this for the money. And the whole gamer/consumer advocacy is actually secondary?

At least from AJ's part. But I agree with him about that I should be able to use the property that I bought for my own monetary benefit on my own without having to pay extra to the seller to do so.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I took this video to be a rant against Nintendo, nothing more.

 

[Elijin]

It's a poorly articulated discussion about respect.

The idea that theft of artistic materials is less about morality/legality and more about respect (or lack of) being shown towards the creators. Then playing that out to the conclusion that Nintendo doesn't think twice about putting it's hands into smaller creators pockets, so why should the everyman respect Nintendo enough not to steal from them in return.

Not saying it's necessarily a good argument, but that's what I took from it.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

But its their product, you can argue and complain all you want but they are in the right, end of story.

And I still think LPs are no different from listening to whole albums of Music in Youtube or watching while movie. And I find the whole "Games are interactive" thing to be weak.

I would agree if we were talking about a long play with no commentary, but let's plays are about the commentary as much as they are about the gameplay. Obviously it varies from one let's player to the next, but generally the gameplay is used as a jumping off point for them to talk about whatever. That arguably makes it a transformative work protected by fair use (I say arguably because it's still an issue that people debate).

 

[FalloutJack]

Nintendo's old games should not be selling at all. They're almost as old as I am. It's time to put them out to pasture.

 

[Story]

Nintendo's old games should not be selling at all. They're almost as old as I am. It's time to put them out to pasture.

Not really what the video is about. Jim proposed that under the logic of Nintendo's disrespect to fair use law, the common man could also pirate any of Nintendo's games even new or readily available ones, and feel guilt free doing so.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I'm not going to defend him on that. As much of a dickhead Nintendo has been, I don't agree on using piracy as a mean of revenge. In the worst case, I prefer not to buy, period.

OT: It seems Jim can't even sound humorous about this matter. Nintendo is not only poking the bear with a stick, it's whacking the cubs with a baseball bat in front of the mother bear. I mean there's a breaking point when even intelligent, witty thinkers like Jim will say 'f it all' and give them the death stare. It's gotten to the point freaken Angry Joe might in fact bring Nintendo to court if they try to shut down his future reviews for any upcoming Nintendo games because they're violating Fair Use laws.

I want to like Nintendo, I want to say they're the good guys. Not anymore, not after what they did to Youtube LP'ers and their trigger-happy copyright claiming spree despite people were doing em a favor by spreading good word about their games.

Nintendo has shut down none of AJ's videos. They were marked with content ID, and kept the ad revenue for them. AJ preferred to give a big FU and remove the video than to let them have any more money.

So basically youtubers are just doing this for the money. And the whole gamer/consumer advocacy is actually secondary?

Wait, you are telling me that people expect to get money out of doing their job?

Or is it that being remunerated automatically means nothing matters and anything goes?

Because I am having a hard time following your logic that people shouldn't complain about work conditions and things/people that make their job harder just because they earn money out of it.

Oh as if sitting down playing a game and talking about whether its good or bad, is such a daunting task for a fragile working person to do

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I'm not going to defend him on that. As much of a dickhead Nintendo has been, I don't agree on using piracy as a mean of revenge. In the worst case, I prefer not to buy, period.

OT: It seems Jim can't even sound humorous about this matter. Nintendo is not only poking the bear with a stick, it's whacking the cubs with a baseball bat in front of the mother bear. I mean there's a breaking point when even intelligent, witty thinkers like Jim will say 'f it all' and give them the death stare. It's gotten to the point freaken Angry Joe might in fact bring Nintendo to court if they try to shut down his future reviews for any upcoming Nintendo games because they're violating Fair Use laws.

I want to like Nintendo, I want to say they're the good guys. Not anymore, not after what they did to Youtube LP'ers and their trigger-happy copyright claiming spree despite people were doing em a favor by spreading good word about their games.

Nintendo has shut down none of AJ's videos. They were marked with content ID, and kept the ad revenue for them. AJ preferred to give a big FU and remove the video than to let them have any more money.

So basically youtubers are just doing this for the money. And the whole gamer/consumer advocacy is actually secondary?

Wait, you are telling me that people expect to get money out of doing their job?

Or is it that being remunerated automatically means nothing matters and anything goes?

Because I am having a hard time following your logic that people shouldn't complain about work conditions and things/people that make their job harder just because they earn money out of it.

Oh as if sitting down playing a game and talking about whether its good or bad, is such a daunting task for a fragile working person to do

By that logic, Roger Ebert never held a job. After all, it must not be a very daunting task to sit down, watch a movie, and talk about whether it's good or bad.

I understand if you think some LP'ers are overpaid, but if they are doing their thing full time, as a job rather than a hobby, why shouldn't they get paid? Just because you think it's too easy of a job?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I'm not going to defend him on that. As much of a dickhead Nintendo has been, I don't agree on using piracy as a mean of revenge. In the worst case, I prefer not to buy, period.

OT: It seems Jim can't even sound humorous about this matter. Nintendo is not only poking the bear with a stick, it's whacking the cubs with a baseball bat in front of the mother bear. I mean there's a breaking point when even intelligent, witty thinkers like Jim will say 'f it all' and give them the death stare. It's gotten to the point freaken Angry Joe might in fact bring Nintendo to court if they try to shut down his future reviews for any upcoming Nintendo games because they're violating Fair Use laws.

I want to like Nintendo, I want to say they're the good guys. Not anymore, not after what they did to Youtube LP'ers and their trigger-happy copyright claiming spree despite people were doing em a favor by spreading good word about their games.

Nintendo has shut down none of AJ's videos. They were marked with content ID, and kept the ad revenue for them. AJ preferred to give a big FU and remove the video than to let them have any more money.

So basically youtubers are just doing this for the money. And the whole gamer/consumer advocacy is actually secondary?

Wait, you are telling me that people expect to get money out of doing their job?

Or is it that being remunerated automatically means nothing matters and anything goes?

Because I am having a hard time following your logic that people shouldn't complain about work conditions and things/people that make their job harder just because they earn money out of it.

Oh as if sitting down playing a game and talking about whether its good or bad, is such a daunting task for a fragile working person to do

By that logic, Roger Ebert never held a job. After all, it must not be a very daunting task to sit down, watch a movie, and talk about whether it's good or bad.

I understand if you think some LP'ers are overpaid, but if they are doing their thing full time, as a job rather than a hobby, why shouldn't they get paid? Just because you think it's too easy of a job?

In a way, yes. It completely destroys the concept of Hard Work and its something that does not really benefit a nations eceonomy compared to being a farmer or miner or even a chef.

But that's just me.

 

[darkrage6]

I totally see where Jim is coming from and think he's absolutely right. Not surprised that this JQ has some Nintendo fanboys up in arms(I see them come out every single time Yahtzee dares to criticize a Nintendo game).

 

[Cowabungaa]

Fair enough it is pretty complicated...I'm not even sure if Jim is even referring to an exact contract and as you said if that theory really applies here. Say that it does; is someone have to be contractually obligated for there to be a violation of rights? Lightspeaker mentioned the separation of legal respect and moral respect and also that Nintendo's ID laws effect everyone even if its not direct. Are they a breach of contract in this case? Guess it depends on the contract like you said.

Eh, you don't really need to answer any of these points; they really won't solve the problem I have with this video: In that its saying that it is okay to violate someone else rights because they violated yours. You might disagree but saying "breach of contract" or "because they are hypocrites" seems like a flimsy excuse to wrong the other party to me.

Well, you have to see 'contract' in a more abstract manner here. It helps that for this case there are actual contracts involved, terms of service and fair use laws and such. But in the end its arguments are seated on a more abstract plane.

As for what you say about rights violation, that's exactly the thing; both parties only have those rights because both agreed to granting both parties certain rights and duties based on a mutually agreed contract. It's completely irrational for the injured party to keep honouring the agreement when they're getting nothing out of it any more and the breaching party basically hoarded all the advantages and is denying the injured party theirs. The contract, by all intents and purposes, is null and void. Why then would it be unjust for the injured party to keep honouring the contract? There's basically no contract to follow any more.

Take a more serious example; the American civil rights movement in the 60's. Lots of commentators used your arguments towards Martin Luther King's protesting; your cause is just but you harm it by breaking the law which is an unjust thing to do. But the thing is that the law itself, as it was enforced and legislated, was unjust towards coloured people. And when the law basically stops protecting you, when one party is denying the other party all the rights the injured party should get it becomes completely irrational for the injured party to keep honouring the social contract. Hell, it might even be harmful for the injured party to keep following it.

Naturally the Nintendo case is a lot more trivial, luckily, but the reasoning behind it is pretty much the same. To keep following a contract, as the injured party, when that contract has been breached and your granted rights are being denied is pure folly. Next to that, if we follow your reasoning breaking contract would have pretty much no consequence. It'd remove the point of going into contract with another party. Why would any party ever go into contract with another when they know the other party could just break contract without repercussions? You can't have your cake and eat it too, and that's exactly what Nintendo wants. So either they should owe up and honour their part of the bargain or the other side has justification to ditch the agreement as well.

 

[CaitSeith]

By that logic, Roger Ebert never held a job. After all, it must not be a very daunting task to sit down, watch a movie, and talk about whether it's good or bad.

I understand if you think some LP'ers are overpaid, but if they are doing their thing full time, as a job rather than a hobby, why shouldn't they get paid? Just because you think it's too easy of a job?

In a way, yes. It completely destroys the concept of Hard Work and its something that does not really benefit a nations eceonomy compared to being a farmer or miner or even a chef.

But that's just me.

I have heard the same shit applied to profesional athletes, musicicians, movie stars, TV stars, game developers, etc. None of them holds water.

 

[FalloutJack]

Nintendo's old games should not be selling at all. They're almost as old as I am. It's time to put them out to pasture.

Not really what the video is about. Jim proposed that under the logic of Nintendo's disrespect to fair use law, the common man could also pirate any of Nintendo's games even new or readily available ones, and feel guilt free doing so.

I know. It's because they're so old that they should be basically up for grabs...ya dig?

 

[Story]

Thanks for the detailed response that's pretty interesting. However after your elaboration, I'm really starting to question whether or not social contract theory can be applied here. At the risk of defending Nintendo, here are my thoughts.

Well, you have to see 'contract' in a more abstract manner here. It helps that for this case there are actual contracts involved, terms of service and fair use laws and such. But in the end its arguments are seated on a more abstract plane.

I think I'm having trouble seeing this as a contract in the abstract for the following reasons:

1. Jim calling for other people to pirate seems to me like he's asking the help of parties that would be considered outside of the contract. This is the first thing I brought up and it wasn't really refuted. You suggested it depended on what Jim means but I have to question what does he mean? To me, it seemed like Jim was referring almost exclusively to Nintendo and transformative creators in IP laws. Lightspeaker said everyone is effected by Nintendo's draconian IP laws and policies, however not everyone is affected equally. As with the above example if Jim feels like his rights are slighted literally in that Nintendo doesn't respect the IP rights of him than he feels that he shouldn't respect the rights of Nintendo and so theoretically steals revenue from them. But what of other people who do not make Youtube videos? Am I in the right now to breach my contract with Nintendo because they don't respect another person's rights or just IP rights in general?


2. There are several outside parities and contracts in play not just Nintendo. Jim seems to be boiling this down to Nintendo versus Youtubers and makers of transformative works. And why wouldn't he? Nintendo goes out of its way to remove videos. But it is more complicated than that there is also Youtube, any outside publishers, retailers, ect. Each of which theoretically and literally has legal and social contracts with Nintendo and the makers of transformative works like Jim. To ignore that contract is to potentially breach other contracts.

As for what you say about rights violation, that's exactly the thing; both parties only have those rights because both agreed to granting both parties certain rights and duties based on a mutually agreed contract. It's completely irrational for the injured party to keep honouring the agreement when they're getting nothing out of it any more and the breaching party basically hoarded all the advantages and is denying the injured party theirs. The contract, by all intents and purposes, is null and void. Why then would it be unjust for the injured party to keep honouring the contract? There's basically no contract to follow any more.

Now I didn't want to make this as one of my points because this is where it gets foggy but I think it is worth discussing that's voluntarism. Did Nintendo agree to a contact with transformative creators? Some like myself believe that they are because they distribute goods here. But others believe they are going by Japanese IP laws, or they are using the rights given to them by the third party Youtube which Jim agreed with, or US IP laws are so vague in a sense that what Nintendo's awful policy is covered. Only the Youtube argument has any credence to me. Your thoughts?

Naturally the Nintendo case is a lot more trivial, luckily, but the reasoning behind it is pretty much the same. To keep following a contract, as the injured party, when that contract has been breached and your granted rights are being denied is pure folly. Next to that, if we follow your reasoning breaking contract would have pretty much no consequence. It'd remove the point of going into contract with another party. Why would any party ever go into contract with another when they know the other party could just break contract without repercussions? You can't have your cake and eat it too, and that's exactly what Nintendo wants. So either they should owe up and honour their part of the bargain or the other side has justification to ditch the agreement as well.

All good questions and would make sense if this theory is applied with a contract between only content creators and Nintendo but I believe there is more at play here.

Edit:
Grammatical errors, apologies, I hope I was clear enough.

 

[Story]

Nintendo's old games should not be selling at all. They're almost as old as I am. It's time to put them out to pasture.

Not really what the video is about. Jim proposed that under the logic of Nintendo's disrespect to fair use law, the common man could also pirate any of Nintendo's games even new or readily available ones, and feel guilt free doing so.

I know. It's because they're so old that they should be basically up for grabs...ya dig?

Is this a commentary on Nintendo reusing the same IPs and therefore their games lack credence or value because of their perceived lack of originality?

 

[FalloutJack]

Nintendo's old games should not be selling at all. They're almost as old as I am. It's time to put them out to pasture.

Not really what the video is about. Jim proposed that under the logic of Nintendo's disrespect to fair use law, the common man could also pirate any of Nintendo's games even new or readily available ones, and feel guilt free doing so.

I know. It's because they're so old that they should be basically up for grabs...ya dig?

Is this a commentary on Nintendo reusing the same IPs and therefore their games lack credence or value because of their perceived lack of originality?

Pretty much. Restamping old games that are the same now as they were when I was a child is kind of pushing things. When old games are re-released on a newer system with updates and extra materials, that's one thing, but this is the same game, the exact game. Nintendo already re-releases stuff with updates all the time. What's even the point of this?

 

[Story]

Nintendo's old games should not be selling at all. They're almost as old as I am. It's time to put them out to pasture.

Not really what the video is about. Jim proposed that under the logic of Nintendo's disrespect to fair use law, the common man could also pirate any of Nintendo's games even new or readily available ones, and feel guilt free doing so.

I know. It's because they're so old that they should be basically up for grabs...ya dig?

Is this a commentary on Nintendo reusing the same IPs and therefore their games lack credence or value because of their perceived lack of originality?

Pretty much.

Spoiler: Okay great, I thought so!

Restamping old games that are the same now as they were when I was a child is kind of pushing things. When old games are re-released on a newer system with updates and extra materials, that's one thing, but this is the same game, the exact game. Nintendo already re-releases stuff with updates all the time. What's even the point of this?

Eh. I'm not going to refute that. Nintendo's quality has little to do the fact that Jim pretty much made the "eye for an eye" argument. He could be talking about any company really, "they do it so I should do it" is not a good defense for rallying up your audience to steal crap.