Why It's Morally Okay To Pirate All Of Nintendo's Games (The Jimquisition)

[Jtbrig7390]

Nintendo's region lock makes it okay to pirate their games, according to Jim, so it must be okay for me to watch and read Jim's content re-uploaded to other channels and other sites so that he doesn't benefit from ad revenue in any way

He doesn't benefit from ad revenue at all.....

All his money comes from patron........

But thx for showing you didn't watch the video or even have a clue about him. As for removing any mention of patron...his videos rarely advertise him doing that, its normally just known or in the videos description.

[Avar ize]

Its not "morally okay." Sorry Jim. Just because you want to monetize playing their games, doesn't suddenly make it okay for everyone else to steal their product.

it is morally okay, even if you disagree do not make it true
it is still illegal tho, so fuck morals

[rad586]

I just went through all pages of this thread and I am shocked how many idiots just go straight to bashing Jim without watching the video or understanding the complete picture of this situation.

I am subscribed to Jim, so I saw the video yesterday. I was shocked seeing such title, but after watching it I understood what he means.

The situation:

Jim Sterling is not making any money from posting the video of Jimquisition on Youtube. Those videos are completely crowdfunded on Patreon.

Jim shows 10 seconds of gameplay of Nintendo game. Video gets COPYRIGHT CLAIMED BY NINTENDO.
Jim shows 10 seconds of a Nintendo TRAILER in his video. COPYRIGHT CLAIMED BY NINTENDO.
Jim says Nintendo once in a video. COPYRIGHT CLAIMED BY NINTENDO.

Because the video gets claimed by Nintendo, the originally add-free video gets adds put in front/middle of it. Video that was not supposed to make any money for ANYONE, starts making money for Nintendo.

Their actions are absurd, to the point of copyright-claiming 2 hours of Co-Optional podcast just because they've played Nintendo's trailer while discussing upcoming release of the game the trailer was about.

The situation where Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Japan claimed the same footage and blocked each other from getting a revenue is even more ridiculous.

If it goes on, you will see adds on nearby monitors whenever someone even mentions Nintendo in near vicinity.


Nintendo thinks copyright laws serve them and they don't even acknowledge fair-use clause. That's the point of video. But you have to watch and understand the video instead of going "TRIGGERED!!!!!!1!1!!1!" just by reading the title.

[skitzin]

They actually do... and they do so.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

You can argue that Nintendo has a bad policy on this. Which they do. Don't try to backseat lawmaker and claim what they can or can't do with their own Intellectual Property.

But hey kid, good luck getting google to fight this case for you and go to court with Nintendo LUL.

They cannot claim any IP on something that is not theirs. That's what work made by others means.

Imagine the shit storm they'd have on their hands if they tried it with a company. Say EA produced a clip with Nintendo content.

Nintendo does not get any right to claim income off that video since it includes works that are not theirs. Now we swap out EA for Youtuber X. The only thing that changes is that EA has a lot more bite (read: money) to fight back with than average joe - but it doesn't make it close to being legal for Nintendo to claim it.

If you were as well versed on copyright as you act then you'd know most of the time companies hide behind the threat of lawsuit because it's cheaper to bluff people into folding versus the cost of taking it court.

But hey don't worry you keep sitting there trying to argue bullshit, kid.

[TriHard]

When it comes to nintendo and their stupid region lock, i support it.

The region lock is no longer there. The switch is global

[NED funded]

If Jim Sterling has a problem with how id claims works he should go to Youtube, if you do not like Nintendo's anti-consumer stances then do not buy stuff from them. Its not morally right to pirate petty shit.

[Vespian]

I just went through all pages of this thread and I am shocked how many idiots just go straight to bashing Jim without watching the video or understanding the complete picture of this situation.

I am subscribed to Jim, so I saw the video yesterday. I was shocked seeing such title, but after watching it I understood what he means.

The situation:

Jim Sterling is not making any money from posting the video of Jimquisition on Youtube. Those videos are completely crowdfunded on Patreon.

Jim shows 10 seconds of gameplay of Nintendo game. Video gets COPYRIGHT CLAIMED BY NINTENDO.
Jim shows 10 seconds of a Nintendo TRAILER in his video. COPYRIGHT CLAIMED BY NINTENDO.
Jim says Nintendo once in a video. COPYRIGHT CLAIMED BY NINTENDO.

Because the video gets claimed by Nintendo, the originally add-free video gets adds put in front/middle of it. Video that was not supposed to make any money for ANYONE, starts making money for Nintendo.

Their actions are absurd, to the point of copyright-claiming 2 hours of Co-Optional podcast just because they've played Nintendo's trailer while discussing upcoming release of the game the trailer was about.

The situation where Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Japan claimed the same footage and blocked each other from getting a revenue is even more ridiculous.

If it goes on, you will see adds on nearby monitors whenever someone even mentions Nintendo in near vicinity.


Nintendo thinks copyright laws serve them and they don't even acknowledge fair-use clause. That's the point of video. But you have to watch and understand the video instead of going "TRIGGERED!!!!!!1!1!!1!" just by reading the title.

Literally everybody but you (and me) only saw the title :P

The point is, that you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't apply copyright law one way and ignore all other aspects, which is what Nintendo does. I still have hope that this vision is applied to people breaking the law willingly as well, to be honest, because you know, violent burglars shouldn't be able to get protection by law, but oh boy, human rights activists right.

[Tech614]

They cannot claim any IP on something that is not theirs. That's what work made by others means.

/facepalm

They can and are claiming anything that shows their IP in videos unless you're part of their program.

"They cannot". Yaaaaa... okay bud sure thing.

[Blayze]

The more I learn about Nintendo, the more I wish I'd never given them any money ever.

[Thage]

Nintendos policy on youtube can be described as pretty draconian. You either pay them 40% of revenue on video with any of their content on it or they file a DMCA.

This is what's causing the uproar amongst content creators on YouTube, including Sterling.

However, piracy is not fine, just dont do Nintendo coverage. Not a great solution for critics but its not worth sticking your neck out and risk your own livelyhood for it.

I'm more lax on piracy than the quoted*, but yes, a good alternative and probably the morally-superior one is to simply not give Nintendo the coverage.

The reason other game companies allow things like Let's Plays or game footage over unrelated news reports (like what's commonly used by accounts like ReviewTechUSA) on top of critical reviews is because it's essentially free advertising among that player's/reporter's fanbase. Nintendo's draconian policies in that regard will more likely bite them in the ass in the long run as they lose that free advertising in favor of other companies who won't drop the DMCA hammer without getting a direct kickback because they're usually smart enough to know the overall boost in sales from popular reviewers and Let's Players (even bad reviews often see a notable uptick in sales, as the Angry Video Game Nerd, I Hate Everything, and Nostalgia Critic reviews can attest) will offset any imagined loss in sales from people getting a "free ride" through the content.

That being said, piracy will always be a thing, especially as companies get increasingly-invasive with DRM (which only punishes paying customers, as pirates tend to release DRM jailbreaks within a week of a game going up for sale) and games continue to rise in cost, making it harder to justify blind purchases. Many pirates do so as a try-before-you-buy demo of the game; many others simply do so because they're cheap or have a personal vendetta against the parent company (for example, a BioWare fan who refuses to give EA money). I'd actually be surprised if companies don't take into account a certain amount of piracy when marketing the game and pricing it, contributing to the never-ending arms race between DRM-cracking pirates and companies coming out with tougher and tougher DRM.

[Orange Joe]

Anything stored digitally is a series of ones and zeros.

No it's not......

- - - Updated - - -

Literally everybody but you (and me) only saw the title :P

The point is, that you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't apply copyright law one way and ignore all other aspects, which is what Nintendo does. I still have hope that this vision is applied to people breaking the law willingly as well, to be honest, because you know, violent burglars shouldn't be able to get protection by law, but oh boy, human rights activists right.

Feel free to tell me where I was wrong.

[Deleted]

No it's not......

- - - Updated - - -




Feel free to tell me where I was wrong.

Yes it is. Unless you're being dense and saying (for example only) that pits and troughs are not zero and one equivalents.

[Usagi Senshi]

Literally everybody but you (and me) only saw the title :P

The point is, that you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't apply copyright law one way and ignore all other aspects, which is what Nintendo does. I still have hope that this vision is applied to people breaking the law willingly as well, to be honest, because you know, violent burglars shouldn't be able to get protection by law, but oh boy, human rights activists right.

Go read the same thread at neogaf, my god, its worse than this thread, lol.

I'm always 50/50 with Jim but with him 100% on this one.

[breadisfunny]

Yes it is. Unless you're being dense and saying (for example only) that pits and troughs are not zero and one equivalents.

your seriously making the argument that all the time and labor and effort put into a digital product does not mean anything...if the developers had never put the time into making the product that digital product wouldn't exist. these developers need to be paid. the product is sold for a determined amount of money. how do they make any money if they release it digital only and you expect it to be free? if that was the case NO ONE would ever make games digitally unless they are doing it in their spare time. because using your logic there is no return on investment and no profit from it. which means the developers don't get paid and they can't pay their bills.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what's causing the uproar amongst content creators on YouTube, including Sterling.

I'm more lax on piracy than the quoted*, but yes, a good alternative and probably the morally-superior one is to simply not give Nintendo the coverage.

The reason other game companies allow things like Let's Plays or game footage over unrelated news reports (like what's commonly used by accounts like ReviewTechUSA) on top of critical reviews is because it's essentially free advertising among that player's/reporter's fanbase. Nintendo's draconian policies in that regard will more likely bite them in the ass in the long run as they lose that free advertising in favor of other companies who won't drop the DMCA hammer without getting a direct kickback because they're usually smart enough to know the overall boost in sales from popular reviewers and Let's Players (even bad reviews often see a notable uptick in sales, as the Angry Video Game Nerd, I Hate Everything, and Nostalgia Critic reviews can attest) will offset any imagined loss in sales from people getting a "free ride" through the content.

That being said, piracy will always be a thing, especially as companies get increasingly-invasive with DRM (which only punishes paying customers, as pirates tend to release DRM jailbreaks within a week of a game going up for sale) and games continue to rise in cost, making it harder to justify blind purchases. Many pirates do so as a try-before-you-buy demo of the game; many others simply do so because they're cheap or have a personal vendetta against the parent company (for example, a BioWare fan who refuses to give EA money). I'd actually be surprised if companies don't take into account a certain amount of piracy when marketing the game and pricing it, contributing to the never-ending arms race between DRM-cracking pirates and companies coming out with tougher and tougher DRM.

nintendo's draconian bullshit policy on fair use on youtube does not make it legal or ok to pirate their games. that is just an excuse one uses to justify something they were predisposed to do anyways. btw i find jim's take on it somewhat ironic in that if he knows anything about how the real ones who make the decisions won't really be hurt by piracy because of upper managements decisions since they get paid absurd salaries and get absurd bonuses and get really absurd severance pays when they leave anyways. only people your really hurting are the lower employees like devs,customer support,janitors,minimum wage employees who make the games who might just get fired for it because of poor sales when they have to cut staff. you know the people who actually NEED the wages.

[Deleted]

To be honest I am conflicted on the issue.

I understand his point and can see why he feels the way he does, But like others also have said two wrong's don't make a right.

So my stance is (as it normally has been with pirating) I don't condone or condemn it.

I personally don't and won't pirate, but I won't lash out at those who do. I rather they pirate then buy from sites like G2A, Not going into detail on why I feel that way. If anyone wants to know feel free to read the G2A threads I have made.

There is also some cases where pirating is the only way to play X game, Unless you want to spend $100+ for a old ass copy from a collector.

Not watching the vid, and not sure he is who I think he is.
But if jimquisition is that pretentious fat fucking retard that crossdresses and pretends to be his own wife, then I can only assume he's being assblasted over something trivial, again.

What is it this time? Nintendo didnt pander to him, or did they do something that offends his stupid sjw beliefs? Dont tell me he's STILL crying over Nintendo claiming vids containing their games? Which is well within their rights.

[Belize]

More like: Nintendo doesn't acknowledge copyright laws, by rejecting fair-use.

That's basically the point he's making. Nintendo doesn't get to cherry pick the pieces of copyright laws they want.

[breadisfunny]

It's more like his complaint is that copyright is a two way street and Nintendo are being dickbags and acting like copyright laws exist only to protect them and not everyone else. And copyright laws even allow for content creators on YouTube to use multiple copyrighted pieces in order to null and void other copyright complaints. In doing so, it diminishes the entire value of copyright infringement complaints by Nintendo against YouTubers

- - - Updated - - -



Because fans are sick of getting milked like cows for poorly done ports of classic games? How about the fact that Nintendo has continually taken a giant fucking dump all over the chests of their most loyal fans and streamers alike. Their attitudes towards streaming is embarrassing and archaeic.

using this logic you can morally justify murder because you hate that person. in fact if your going to use your feelings to justify breaking the law why have laws in the first place?

[Rotted]

tbh no issue pirating any games beyond a certain time frame and if I dont own them,

for example, n64, I have a bunch of games, still play some on it when I feel the need. But my mum could never afford to buy pokemon stadium 1 or 2, we didn't live anywhere near a 2nd hand game store (youd be looking at a 2 hour drive, 4 round trip for the nearest). So when I found out about emulators, I didn't have an issue downloading stadium.

For the record, I'm collecting older consoles right now and some games, but I refuse point blank to pay 50 quid for stadium (its actually in a little shop around the corner)

All that being said, All of nintendos games? does that include the wii? wiiu etc, at that point I draw a line as those consoles are still relatively new, used and games still sold as a common place.

[breadisfunny]

Also, his whole Copyright-Deadlock thing is probably one of the best things that has ever happened. The sheer stupidity of Nintendo America and Nintendo Japan (and many other companies) claiming seperate COPYRIGHT CLAIMS on one of his video is completely absurd and funny at the same time.

not really they most likely got orders to both claim the video resulting in them both having claims on it. it's not uncommon for departments to not properly communicate with each other especially if it's overseas and something needs to be done now. your boss isn't likely to let you just make a international call to japan headquarters assuming you can even speak japanese or they have an english translator on hand
or send out a email and hope they reply in time.

- - - Updated - - -

They cannot claim any IP on something that is not theirs. That's what work made by others means.

Imagine the shit storm they'd have on their hands if they tried it with a company. Say EA produced a clip with Nintendo content.

Nintendo does not get any right to claim income off that video since it includes works that are not theirs. Now we swap out EA for Youtuber X. The only thing that changes is that EA has a lot more bite (read: money) to fight back with than average joe - but it doesn't make it close to being legal for Nintendo to claim it.

If you were as well versed on copyright as you act then you'd know most of the time companies hide behind the threat of lawsuit because it's cheaper to bluff people into folding versus the cost of taking it court.

But hey don't worry you keep sitting there trying to argue bullshit, kid.

ea would have to get nintendo's permission first. ea would not do that without the ok from them. same with nintendo featuring ea footage. companies usually run this stuff by legal departments first.

[Deleted]

1) fair use does not apply to lets plays
2) fair use is an US only thing. Nintendo is a Japanese company.