05-20-2013, 05:15 PM
I was on a few places reading and arguing about this last week. Nintendo, right now, reminds me of this:
...circa 2000.
They're just greedy, Disney-like in their approach to icon cutivation, still don't understand the internet (as demonstrated by their systems), and half of the arguing body for the issue don't comprehend or value modern video game commentary, broadcasting, and performance as a product.
If I sing your song, you don't own my voice, my night club, or all the alcohol in the store room. You can't just come and charge people $10 to come in and I get $0.
Yes, Nintendo's entitled to their share, but youtube's facilitating a %100/%0 split without question. They're within their legal rights, but not ethical in doing so, and this is like if current regulations for vehicles and roads were being applied to flying cars and airways.
...circa 2000.
They're just greedy, Disney-like in their approach to icon cutivation, still don't understand the internet (as demonstrated by their systems), and half of the arguing body for the issue don't comprehend or value modern video game commentary, broadcasting, and performance as a product.
If I sing your song, you don't own my voice, my night club, or all the alcohol in the store room. You can't just come and charge people $10 to come in and I get $0.
Yes, Nintendo's entitled to their share, but youtube's facilitating a %100/%0 split without question. They're within their legal rights, but not ethical in doing so, and this is like if current regulations for vehicles and roads were being applied to flying cars and airways.