What did everyone think of the latest Jimquisition?

[TrulyBritish]

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.

That would be an interesting argument if not for the fact that "Hard Work" is a stupid and useless concept.
Work is work.
People cannot be good at everything or have time for everything so the world works in a manner that people specialise in skills and do that work for you in return for a fee.
I can cook but sometimes I don't want to or want something I can't cook so I go out to restaurant. In return I pay them.
I'm not an expert in law so if I need to I pay a lawyer. They'll get paid a lot for their expertise.
I need food but don't have the land/time to grow by own food so we have farmers. They get paid.
The actual difficulty of the work is irrelevant. It's not hard to stack merchandise, file paperwork, deliver parcels or work registers. But it still needs doing and people are paid to do that.
Hell, if we're going to be reductive we can say it's not difficult to program, anyone can learn it (and I am).
You can argue that people shouldn't be paid ridiculous amounts to do certain work like people do with, say, footballers but it's downright daft to say people shouldn't be paid at all or shouldn't care about pay.

I do not have time to play every game and decide if it's good for me. So other people do it professionally and they deserve to be paid for fulfilling that service.
I can understand a hard stance against Let's Players, I think it's dumb considering the proven effects they can have in attention and hype but from an IP protection view point I get it.
But we're not just talking about let's plays, this is about reviewers being hindered in their work by a corporation that is wilfully ignoring Copyright law. Nintendo's Creator program represents a massive conflict of interests in anyone who goes with it and is needlessly hostile to those who don't.

The whole "internet videos aren't a real job" is stupid and only perpetuates the idea that the only meaningful work is one done under the boot of a corporation who couldn't give less of a fuck what's in the best interests of consumers and workers a like.

 

[MatParker116]

Jim's allowed an occasional video that's just an angry rant and after what Nintendo has put him and other Youtubers through I don't blame him for being angry.

The fact that he had to invent the copyright deadlock to deal with stuff like this is proof that A) Youtube really needs to find a better solution, and B) Nintendo needs to learn what fair use actually means and realize that no one is trying to steal their IP. If any of those fan games they've shut down were being sold for real actual money that would be one thing but to the best of my knowledge none of them were.

Also a brief comment on the "Oh Ubisoft" segment, For Honor definitely has some kinks to work out but in my experience the online issues have gone down significantly in the week or so since release. Room for improvement still but not quite as bad from what I've seen.

Fair use is a defence not a right.

 

[Dalisclock]

I saw that and while I kind of agree with his sentiments, he didn't do a great job of making his point and then entire thing came across as very ranty and hard to listen to.

And this is pretty bad considering I have no love for how Nintendo treats fair use. Then there's the Mother 3 issue....

 

[RJ 17]

if I'm understanding his argument correctly. It's okay to steal because a company does not respect you? And because Nintendo copyright claims YouTubers and fan made projects everyone should just steal things from Nintendo as well...am I missing something here? I rather have a second opinion outside of the YouTube comment section so I thought it would be best to discuss the video over here on the Escapist.

What he's saying is that Nintendo always demands that we play by their rules or we don't get to play at all. One of the rules that Nintendo plays by - regarding its own corporate procedures - is to pick and chose which parts of copyright law it wants to follow and which ones it wants to piss all over.

As such, playing by Nintendo's rules would - hypothetically and hyperbolicly (if I can make up a word ) - mean that we should all get to pick and choose which parts of the copyright law that we should get to follow and which ones we want to piss all over. Ergo: since Nintendo wants to completely ignore the fact that Fair Use is a thing and constantly shuts down/monetizes videos that should be protected by Fair Use, we should just completely ignore the fact that downloading roms is piracy and completely illegal.

Long story short: it's just Jim calling Nintendo a bunch of hypocrites for demanding that law be upheld in their favor while they, themselves, completely disregard another portion of that same set of laws (copyright laws, that is). So he's just casting stones at their flagrant disregard for Fair Use, which is something he's done a number of times before.

 

[Story]

if I'm understanding his argument correctly. It's okay to steal because a company does not respect you? And because Nintendo copyright claims YouTubers and fan made projects everyone should just steal things from Nintendo as well...am I missing something here? I rather have a second opinion outside of the YouTube comment section so I thought it would be best to discuss the video over here on the Escapist.

What he's saying is that Nintendo always demands that we play by their rules or we don't get to play at all. One of the rules that Nintendo plays by - regarding its own corporate procedures - is to pick and chose which parts of copyright law it wants to follow and which ones it wants to piss all over.

As such, playing by Nintendo's rules would - hypothetically and hyperbolicly (if I can make up a word ) - mean that we should all get to pick and choose which parts of the copyright law that we should get to follow and which ones we want to piss all over. Ergo: since Nintendo wants to completely ignore the fact that Fair Use is a thing and constantly shuts down/monetizes videos that should be protected by Fair Use, we should just completely ignore the fact that downloading roms is piracy and completely illegal.

Long story short: it's just Jim calling Nintendo a bunch of hypocrites for demanding that law be upheld in their favor while they, themselves, completely disregard another portion of that same set of laws (copyright laws, that is). So he's just casting stones at their flagrant disregard for Fair Use, which is something he's done a number of times before.

Thanks for that detailed explanation. I got most of that from the get go though and I wish Jim was more tongue-in-cheek here. Because as it stands, it looks like Jim is advocating piracy legitimately. I get this impression because Jim is obviously taking this more personal which is causing him to get away from his point.

Farther, he's suggesting everyone do it, even those who aren't actually directly affected by Nintendo's draconian IP policies. As an example according to Jim's logic, if Nintendo has claimed Jim's videos, I...dispute being just as a viewer of Jim's work...am also justified to just pirate Nintendo's games because they don't adhere to law in general why should I?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

1. Theft is theft, no two ways about it, no moral gray area there. Regardless of how a company conducts itself, there's no justification for acquiring something through extralegal means.

2. I do not personally agree with how copyright laws work, feeling its a fairly archaic system that hasn't caught up to the digital age at all and thus creates the legal issues most people try to use as moral justification for theft, which still is wrong. If we don't agree with the laws, we need to work the system as best we can to change those laws to reflect the current state of society rather than break laws. IF said laws aren't enforced is a different story entirely, it means that the government does not see good reason to prosecute said law, but also sees changing that law as a low priority due to bureaucratic inertia.

3. I get what Jim's saying, and I get why he's saying it. I don't actually think he condones any form of piracy, just rather that Nintendo has taken the legal extreme in terms of defending IP and whatnot. Its an old company, and still seems to see things from a rather backwards viewpoint, does not seem to learn the lessons other game/hardware companies have already learned. Resistance to change is nearly directly correlated to the age of an institution, the older it is the more resistant to change.

4. Nintendo has the benefit of cash reserves that makes it difficult for them to really be hurt financially over failures or customer backlash, which adds to the problem. Its easy to think from a customer's standpoint and say how fucked up some of their moves are, and difficult to understand why they seemingly refuse to change their stance. From the flipside, they have enjoyed overall success even despite failures like the WiiU, VirtualBoy, Gamecube, etc. So complaints from a customer point of view when compared with their overall profit margins can seem like a vocal minority issue to the higher ups. Sure hardware sales on the WiiU were abysmal, but the DS/3DS line overall has done well enough that they feel secure making mistakes.

5. Its not an excuse though, none of the points I've made. They still need to evolve as a company because as much cash reserves as they have, it cannot last forever and if they keep having failures, they will overall lose money. Problem is that Nintendo is a Japanese company and the West, while being a large cash market, still is not as important to them (in my opinion) as Japan which seems to take massively less issues with the culture of Nintendo's customer policy. Not being Japanese, I cannot comment with any certainty on why this is but I do feel it may be a difference in the cultural roots of Japan vs. American/European culture in terms of customer relations and whatnot.

So overall, I love Nintendo but at times I do feel they're like old men who've no clue how society has changed but still trying to play the game they always played despite the rules having evolved to a different sort than they knew back in the day. However the legal issues that should nudge along the evolution of companies into modern views/practices have not evolved, allowing the old culture to remain and hamper growth of the industry overall. This shit is still relatively new, the whole entertainment industry and it takes a while for shit to come together. It needs upgrades, but then again all of society does. Going off the rails though and committing theft is not something I can condone. Period.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

1) He's just venting.
2) Stealing from a thief may or may not be morally right but it's still illegal.

 

[MatParker116]

I saw that and while I kind of agree with his sentiments, he didn't do a great job of making his point and then entire thing came across as very ranty and hard to listen to.

And this is pretty bad considering I have no love for how Nintendo treats fair use. Then there's the Mother 3 issue....

Fair Use is again a defence not a right and only applies to videos subject to takedown notices, in cases like this it means jack shit.

Besides it's on Jim and not Nintendo to prove it.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

if I'm understanding his argument correctly. It's okay to steal because a company does not respect you? And because Nintendo copyright claims YouTubers and fan made projects everyone should just steal things from Nintendo as well...am I missing something here? I rather have a second opinion outside of the YouTube comment section so I thought it would be best to discuss the video over here on the Escapist.

What he's saying is that Nintendo always demands that we play by their rules or we don't get to play at all. One of the rules that Nintendo plays by - regarding its own corporate procedures - is to pick and chose which parts of copyright law it wants to follow and which ones it wants to piss all over.

As such, playing by Nintendo's rules would - hypothetically and hyperbolicly (if I can make up a word ) - mean that we should all get to pick and choose which parts of the copyright law that we should get to follow and which ones we want to piss all over. Ergo: since Nintendo wants to completely ignore the fact that Fair Use is a thing and constantly shuts down/monetizes videos that should be protected by Fair Use, we should just completely ignore the fact that downloading roms is piracy and completely illegal.

Long story short: it's just Jim calling Nintendo a bunch of hypocrites for demanding that law be upheld in their favor while they, themselves, completely disregard another portion of that same set of laws (copyright laws, that is). So he's just casting stones at their flagrant disregard for Fair Use, which is something he's done a number of times before.

Thanks for that detailed explanation. I got most of that from the get go though and I wish Jim was more tongue-in-cheek here. Because as it stands, it looks like Jim is advocating piracy legitimately. I get this impression because Jim is obviously taking this more personal which is causing him to get away from his point.

Farther, he's suggesting everyone do it, even those who aren't actually directly affected by Nintendo's draconian IP policies. As an example according to Jim's logic, if Nintendo has claimed Jim's videos, I...dispute being just as a viewer of Jim's work...am also justified to just pirate Nintendo's games because they don't adhere to law in general why should I?

To be fair on Jim, he's still working through his Jim 'Fucking' Sterling persona in the video, where hyperbolic assertions and decrees are his thing, but given the fact that Nintendo has done a lot of shit to him over the years (that '2 hour podcast getting claimed for 5 seconds of footage' wasn't made up) and cost him a lot of money and frustration, I can understand him not being as tongue-in-cheek as usual.

Real Jim doesn't want you to pirate things, he just wants Nintendo to stop being such a cock with copyright laws. Jim
'Fucking' Sterling wants you to pirate the fuck out of everything Nintendo has ever done as a massive Fuck You, and to Thank God For Him.

 

[Lunar Templar]

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.

That would imply that 'hard work pays off in the end' was still true, or was ever true to begin with. Which it's not and never was.

Life is short to waste working a 'productive job' you hate with every fiber of your being just because people like you wouldn't approve of some one turning their hobby/something they are passionate about into a career cause it's not 'productive to society'.

Do what makes you happy, and if you can make money off it. Whether it's 'productive' or not doesn't matter and shouldn't factor in at all.

OT:
Given how Nintendo treats, every one, really. I'm not surprised. Their Youtube policy is backwards and just plan stupid, it's like they WANT to kill word of mouth, and not move product. Personally, I'm taking the stance of 'Nintendo getting what they deserve if people feel like pirating their games out of spite.'

It's not our responsibility to care what happens to them after all, it's their job to make us care about them, and they have been failing at that for years now.

 

[runic knight]

Both are being stupid. I can hold that opinion, yes? Right, both are being stupid then.

Nintendo's claim bullshit spits on fair use and needs to go to hell and die. No justification for the bullshit they pull abusing the youtube system, and I really hope a larger content producer drags them to court for a very public smackdown (Well, public among peer to peer social media. Something tells me most of the mainstream gaming media will be down on their knees to please nintendo and sell their side of the story)

Jim is wrong because pirating is still pirating and things don't suddenly become ok just because you have a chip on your shoulder against the ones you pirating. It is still pirating, and if the company is providing the product, there is no way to deny you are stealing from them.

Now this doesn't mean I am opposed to piracy. Not making that statement at all (nor going to make the counter one here). Merely that it is not justified or any less morally wrong just because you dislike the company than it would be if you didn't dislike them. It is actually a really scary concept that jim is pretty much advocating that doing bad things is ok if you just really don't like the ones you are doing it to.

If you are curious my take on piracy and the like, I think Ross from Ross's Game Dungeon covers the general sentiments there, so if you want to look that up you can hear for yourselves.

On the related topic of paying people for their work that I see tossed around here, I think most creators were paid when they made the work in the first place. The company that invested in them is trying to get a return on their investment when it hits the stores. So the argument is more related to the company getting paid for the work of investing in people to make a game, and how a poor return would affect future games, and maybe bonuses and stuff. So just some thoughts about that.

 

[Worgen]

I don't understand about this whole Anti Youtube stance with Nintendo, I mean if all the Youtubers don't like Nintendo because of the whole Youtube policy, why the fuck am I still seeing Nintendo videos from different Youtubers.

1- Because youtube is big enough that even companies like Nintendo can't stay on top of all the uploads. A period of a couple days is what I would give them, depending on how interested they are.
2- Because Nintendo has an "official" way to allow youtubers to publish videos with Nintendo's blessings (https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/guide/). If you sign up for it, agree that your video is their copyright, agree that you will only show Nintendo approved content, give them veto powers and control of the proceedings to them, they promise not to unleash the copyright dogs to you and share the revenue you generate (but they administer), after they took their cut (70%). As I said before, classical mob racketeering tactics.

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.

If you watch lp vids then you probably aren't just watching them from any creator, you probably have a few creators that you regularly watch. Such as markiplier or game grumps. You're watching the lp for them, not as much for the game.

 

[Amaror]

Anyway Jim pointed out the hypocracy of Nintendo's copy right claim and saids by that logic it is okay to steal from Nintendo too.
This is one of the worst episodes I've seen in a while from Jim, if I'm understanding his argument correctly. It's okay to steal because a company does not respect you? And because Nintendo copyright claims YouTubers and fan made projects everyone should just steal things from Nintendo as well...am I missing something here? I rather have a second opinion outside of the YouTube comment section so I thought it would be best to discuss the video over here on the Escapist.

At least from what I gathered from his video his argument isn't "Nintendo is being mean, so steal from them".
What he is saying is that Nintendo is taking the revenue of youtube videos featuring nintendo games when they are not part of the "Nintendo Creators" program. Those videos, however, are covered under the fair-use law, meaning their usage of Nintendo's games is legetimate. Since the videos are therefore legetimate Nintendo doesn't have any justification for taking the revenue of those videos. But they do it regardless because they are a huge corporation and noone is going to be crazy enough to sue them over youtube-video-revenue.
That means that Nintendo is effectively stealing that revenue from those youtubers. And since Nintendo is stealing, it is morally, if not legally, allright to steal from them too. I agree that it's not the best argument, but it's a good amount more solid then what you seem to have initially gathered from the video.

 

[Story]

Anyway Jim pointed out the hypocracy of Nintendo's copy right claim and saids by that logic it is okay to steal from Nintendo too.
This is one of the worst episodes I've seen in a while from Jim, if I'm understanding his argument correctly. It's okay to steal because a company does not respect you? And because Nintendo copyright claims YouTubers and fan made projects everyone should just steal things from Nintendo as well...am I missing something here? I rather have a second opinion outside of the YouTube comment section so I thought it would be best to discuss the video over here on the Escapist.

At least from what I gathered from his video his argument isn't "Nintendo is being mean, so steal from them".
What he is saying is that Nintendo is taking the revenue of youtube videos featuring nintendo games when they are not part of the "Nintendo Creators" program. Those videos, however, are covered under the fair-use law, meaning their usage of Nintendo's games is legetimate. Since the videos are therefore legetimate Nintendo doesn't have any justification for taking the revenue of those videos. But they do it regardless because they are a huge corporation and noone is going to be crazy enough to sue them over youtube-video-revenue.
That means that Nintendo is effectively stealing that revenue from those youtubers. And since Nintendo is stealing, it is morally, if not legally, allright to steal from them too. I agree that it's not the best argument, but it's a good amount more solid then what you seem to have initially gathered from the video.

What you said was literally what I said in the first sentence of the OP. I appreciate everyone's attempts to try to clarify Jim's stance on this but it is one thing if Jim were asking those directly affected by Jim's copy right laws to steal and quite another to encourage everyone to pirate.

 

[Orga777]

Nintendo is as anti-consumer as Ubisoft or EA or Konami is, however, they always get the pass for being family friendly on the surface. They are pretty trash, overly paranoid, and THE absolute worst offender of fair use laws of any company in the industry. Jim may have lacked a little tact with how he put the words, but i understand the message he was trying to get across in that if Nintendo has no respect for fair use, why should anyone else? It is a very valid concern and shows how out of touch Nintendo has been. They still think it is 1987 instead of 2017. They refuse to adapt with the times in the right ways and refuse to change their dynamic.

However, I find it hilarious that Jim found a way to Gridlock Nintendo against Nintendo. I find that the most hilarious thing ever. Dumb moron Youtube automation.

 

[Avnger]

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.

Not to jump all over you or anything, but even a LPer does benefit the economy. It simply happens in a more indirect fashion.

1. Entertainment, as a product, has enormous directly non-fiscal value that allows its consumers to keep mentally healthy and sane while going about their daily lives (ie: improves their efficiency) thereby impacting the economy positively.

2. LPers do earn their hosting site money. Despite Google still losing a profit on Youtube, without LPers including Jim, Pewdiepie, et al the loss would be significantly larger. Google would then have less money to work with or they simply might pull the plug altogether.

3. The money LPers earn gets put immediately back into the economy with positive effect when they use their earning to buy goods, services, or investments.

4. Your argument is a poor one, in general, as it technically could be applied to all industries that are service related rather than production related. The US (and many other Western countries) moved towards a service economy decades ago.

 

[Kolby Jack]

1) He's just venting.
2) Stealing from a thief may or may not be morally right but it's still illegal.

I believe the title of the video and its main, if somewhat sarcastic, point is that pirating from Nintendo is MORALLY justified. He never comments on the legal side. Given that digital piracy is kind of hard to prevent, the legal side barely matters at all. Basically, people will pirate shit no matter what anyone says or does, and if they happen to pirate from Nintendo, Jim isn't about to come to Nintendo's defense. That's what I got from it.

I used to be more hardline against piracy, but I've softened a bit. I'm still against it in general and the most common arguments in favor of it are bullshit ("I'm pirating it to see if I want to buy it!") but after the whole DRM fiasco and companies pulling shit like Nintendo AND treating reviewers who don't always review things the way they like as if they are black sheep, my stance against piracy no longer factors in the corporation. Most game corporations have proven they don't have the moral high ground in this matter, so fuck 'em. For the few that do run their businesses with fairness, I'll stand up for them, especially since those tend to be smaller corporations who are far more hurt by piracy.

 

[9tailedflame]

I thought his point, while petty and mean-spirited, did make sense (as is fairly typical for the jimquisition, which i love and am an avid watcher of btw). His argument i believe being that nintendo cherry-picks the parts of copyright laws they like and discard the parts they don't like, fair use being the big one in this instance, so if nintendo can warp the law to however suits them, E.G. not respecting fair use and restrictions of copyright law, what right do they have to tell us not to cherry pick, E.G. ignoring the parts where we can't steal their games without paying or getting permission.

It's a reasonable argument, lots of publishers have been abusing youtube far beyond what copyright law allows, and getting away with it, and that's not legal or ethical, yet they do it and get away with it, hence why it's morally justified to fuck with them/do things at their expense.

 

[PapaGreg096]

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.

Well blame capitalism, they have a skill or characteristic that hundred thousands of people want to see and sometimes give them money on paetron