I wonder how much thought really goes into the decisions made by the entertainment industry's current generation of policy-makers. From where I'm sitting, the prevailing attitude seems to be, "We're doing things this way, because we said so. There's no need to consider our consumers, because we know what's best for them. They've supported us in the past, therefore we have their guaranteed support for the future. Our happiness is their happiness."
Example: Nintendo is identifying videos on YouTube that feature Nintendo-created content (e.g.: "Let's Play" videos of Mario and Zelda games) and is collecting any advertising revenue on those videos that otherwise would've gone to the video creator. All discussions of "Fair Use" aside, has Nintendo considered the ramifications of their actions?
Yes, this allows Nintendo to make a profit while protecting its intellectual property. But what happens when reviewers stop posting video reviews of Nintendo games, claiming it's not worth the effort to review something (no matter how good the game may be) when they can't make money off the video? What happens when fans whose enthusiasm for Nintendo is infectious—often inspiring their subscribers to go out and buy more Nintendo games—stop making "Let's Play" videos because they're afraid of having a copyright strike on their account? What happens to fan loyalty when Nintendo, in effect, starts stealing the ad money that allows its biggest fans to avoid working a traditional job? Is the obvious gain worth the potential loss of your fanbase? Or was that not part of the discussion to begin with?
Another example: Microsoft announced the Xbox One.
Yet another example: YouTube is forcing its users to switch to the new "One Channel" design on June 5th, citing an increased focus on content and the ability to reach a broader audience. It's telling that one of the top four autocomplete options for a Google search on the topic is, "youtube one channel sucks." I say this every time YouTube, or Facebook, or anybody at all introduces a so-called "upgrade": Make it better, not different. One Channel strips away much of the individuality of the old channel designs, introduces obnoxious new restrictions for making a channel banner that has to double as a background (depending on how you're viewing the site), and leaves little or no way to keep things THAT WORKED PERFECTLY WELL arranged as they were before. One Channel is targeted at a very specific type of YouTube user, which is great as an option when choosing how best to set up your channel for yourself and your audience. You might be the biggest game in town, YouTube, but you're not the only one—and especially with Nintendo making all those copyright claims, it's not outside the realm of possibility that gamers such as myself might find a more user-friendly site to call home.
I have to wonder whether anybody at Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, or anywhere else is thinking about the people keeping them in business as they pave the roads no one wants to drive on. And I have to wonder what kind of consumers we are to let them get away with it.
Example: Nintendo is identifying videos on YouTube that feature Nintendo-created content (e.g.: "Let's Play" videos of Mario and Zelda games) and is collecting any advertising revenue on those videos that otherwise would've gone to the video creator. All discussions of "Fair Use" aside, has Nintendo considered the ramifications of their actions?
Yes, this allows Nintendo to make a profit while protecting its intellectual property. But what happens when reviewers stop posting video reviews of Nintendo games, claiming it's not worth the effort to review something (no matter how good the game may be) when they can't make money off the video? What happens when fans whose enthusiasm for Nintendo is infectious—often inspiring their subscribers to go out and buy more Nintendo games—stop making "Let's Play" videos because they're afraid of having a copyright strike on their account? What happens to fan loyalty when Nintendo, in effect, starts stealing the ad money that allows its biggest fans to avoid working a traditional job? Is the obvious gain worth the potential loss of your fanbase? Or was that not part of the discussion to begin with?
Another example: Microsoft announced the Xbox One.
Yet another example: YouTube is forcing its users to switch to the new "One Channel" design on June 5th, citing an increased focus on content and the ability to reach a broader audience. It's telling that one of the top four autocomplete options for a Google search on the topic is, "youtube one channel sucks." I say this every time YouTube, or Facebook, or anybody at all introduces a so-called "upgrade": Make it better, not different. One Channel strips away much of the individuality of the old channel designs, introduces obnoxious new restrictions for making a channel banner that has to double as a background (depending on how you're viewing the site), and leaves little or no way to keep things THAT WORKED PERFECTLY WELL arranged as they were before. One Channel is targeted at a very specific type of YouTube user, which is great as an option when choosing how best to set up your channel for yourself and your audience. You might be the biggest game in town, YouTube, but you're not the only one—and especially with Nintendo making all those copyright claims, it's not outside the realm of possibility that gamers such as myself might find a more user-friendly site to call home.
I have to wonder whether anybody at Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, or anywhere else is thinking about the people keeping them in business as they pave the roads no one wants to drive on. And I have to wonder what kind of consumers we are to let them get away with it.
RSS Feed
