Given the celebrations in Malaysia when the hard right government was voted out, no (They eventually squirmed back in but that's another story). Asia doesn't prefer to have them in power. The Philippines didn't enjoy the reign of Imelda Marcos. I know many have complained about Singapore and how the ruling party stays in power.
So, no. Asia doesn't 'prefer' to have them stay in power. I certainly don't like it on a personal level for China to have that much influence over the region too.
I was curious so I took a look at the OC Remix site's T&Cs and I see a bunch of T&Cs that include things like prohibiting users from directly profiting from any track on the site (though it's fine to have on place like YouTube or Twitch if the video doesn't just have the remix).
It would be intriguing to see what other people's reactions might be if OC Remix had to take action on someone that made profit without permission from a track on the site!
Back to the actual comment - I doubt they'd enter Nintendo's crosshairs - the site's T&Cs state that none of the tracks can be used for profit and any ad revenue etc are solely for running and promotion costs. It's not a watertight legal defence but it does make it less likely for them to be targeted by one of the copyright holders.
"A remix generally falls under what is known in U.S. Copyright Law as a “derivative work” – something that has been “recast, transformed, or adapted” to represent an original work of authorship. The creation of a derivative work does require special permission from the copyright owner(s), unless an exception applies."
https://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-rights/remixing-public-domain-and-the-creative-commons-license/
Since when did China control Singapore? That's never happened even when Singapore was part of Malaya.
Are you referring to control through foreign direct investments or something else?
I'm arguing that Synamax could ask.
It's apparently possible to ask for the license from the copyright holder even when there's no official scheme for original game music. Usually, the problem is you don't have a fixed person to contact - not so in this case since he could ask the lawyers who contacted him.
I'm also arguing that if he asked and they blew him off then screw Nintendo.
Of course it's MUCH MUCH easier not to need to ask and just go through the licensing for songs that have already been released in the US - but, I'm arguing that it's not as impossible as Autie is making it out to be. Otherwise, logically speaking, people like Smooth McGroove wouldn't and couldn't be licensed and he's clearly stated that he's sorted that part out. Synamax clearly didn't.
They also place a premium on respect and I imagine the relatively Western concept of "ask forgiveness rather than permission" could easily be offensive.
More insults? Are you incapable of carrying a discussion without one? You know I haven't thrown insults here right so there's no need to do so yourself?
My experience of TechDirt is it attracts commentators who react to the headline first and care little about getting a bit more detail about the story (classic case was the story about the romuniverse site lawsuit- large majority of the comments were raging against Nintendo removing classic ROMs when the lawsuit was focused on Switch ROMs).
Back to the topic at hand, it is entirely reasonable to assume that he can ask said lawyers about how to get one (if there weren't any instructions given during the communications).
You're assuming none were given - only Synamax knows what was written and whether any information was provided about how to get a license.
No need to be so close minded about this. It's not outside the realms of probability for Synamax to ask them how much it would cost and how he could get one IF he was interested. The lawyers could, respond negatively or even with the equivalent of, "not our problem" but you're dead set against the possibility because, I can only guess, of prejudice.
It's clear that other YouTubers can make a living out of music covers that includes videogame music.
It's clear that there's a way to get licensed.
It's not clear whether he tried or whether the costs were much too high to consider.
Did you consider that if the AC was living in a country controlled by China, the most likely term to use would be Chinese or East Asians or some other terms denoting Chinese people? I'm from Southeast Asia
Nice insult. Now try to engage properly without them.
He could still ask the copyright holder (and in this case, it seems like Nintendo's lawyers already contacted him so he doesn't need to spend time hunting around) and they could still grant one.
If he tries and fails, he's free to make Nintendo into bigger asses, particularly if they tell him to get a license but refuse to provide one.
As it stands, the facts are:
- Synamax distributed monetised Nintendo cover songs on YouTube without any of the required licenses for sharing cover songs on YouTube
- Nintendo's lawyers got in touch and said no, take them down, you need a compulsory
- Synamax rejects the demand for a compulsory license and is disappointed at not being able to reach a compromise by having them demonetised (here's possibly where Nintendo could have exercised some leniency but it could lead to others seeing no wrong in going down the same route)
The question I have is: Why was he happy for the videos to earn him money but not pay for the compulsory license when Nitnendo's lawyers got involved? He does go on to say that he could live with them being demonetised but that doesn't change the fact that they were originally monetised.
Everyone knows by now that earning money off Nintendo's IP without permission is a good way to pain a target on your back. Especially in content distribution sites.
Please refer to Synamax's statement where Nintendo's lawyers said he needed to get a compulsory license.
Bigger artists than him have successful careers that include doing videogame song/music covers - Smooth McGroove based his YouTube career on it. Smooth McGroove stated in an interview that he took steps to sort out the licensing and stuff behind the scenes. It's quite clear Synamax didn't/wouldn't do it.
I imagine the primary issue is that he was monetising those covers. You already always need a license to distribute any cover song anyway but monetising them without having a license was always going to be a risk.
Synamax already mentions that Nintendo's lawyers said he needs to get a 'compulsory license' (which basically means means the rights holder can't stop you from releasing your cover song if you get that license)
That won't happen because he's already sorted out the licensing etc unlike Synamax and other previously affected people - "As most YouTube artists rely on ad revenue for a living, do you have concerns about the way Content ID claims are being handled? What impact has this had?
Content ID concerns everyone that does music or gaming on YouTube. I happen to do both, so I definitely have concerns about this. It's made me seek out licensing and other protections for my work, which I've had success with so far."
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/03/ninterview_smooth_mcgroove_on_a_life_in_game_music
I know your comment was a month old but had to correct it.
We're definitely not talking about old ROMs here (Techdirt didn't get that right either as they just assumed it).
The site was actively distributing Switch and 3DS ROMs (and featuring Switch ROMs on the homepage). The guy also charged for premium access to the site and made an easy $30+k annually sitting on his bum.
The case notes that Nintendo specifically called out the Switch and 3DS ROMs on the site.
Users were barely interested in the retro ROMs. The vast amount of Nintendo ROM downloads were for the DS and the Switch.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by JohnnyBlazeon.
I totally agree it sucks
Ok - could you give me a source that shares your position that cover songs on YouTube don't need any licensing?
Given the celebrations in Malaysia when the hard right government was voted out, no (They eventually squirmed back in but that's another story). Asia doesn't prefer to have them in power. The Philippines didn't enjoy the reign of Imelda Marcos. I know many have complained about Singapore and how the ruling party stays in power. So, no. Asia doesn't 'prefer' to have them stay in power. I certainly don't like it on a personal level for China to have that much influence over the region too.
I was curious so I took a look at the OC Remix site's T&Cs and I see a bunch of T&Cs that include things like prohibiting users from directly profiting from any track on the site (though it's fine to have on place like YouTube or Twitch if the video doesn't just have the remix). It would be intriguing to see what other people's reactions might be if OC Remix had to take action on someone that made profit without permission from a track on the site! Back to the actual comment - I doubt they'd enter Nintendo's crosshairs - the site's T&Cs state that none of the tracks can be used for profit and any ad revenue etc are solely for running and promotion costs. It's not a watertight legal defence but it does make it less likely for them to be targeted by one of the copyright holders. "A remix generally falls under what is known in U.S. Copyright Law as a “derivative work” – something that has been “recast, transformed, or adapted” to represent an original work of authorship. The creation of a derivative work does require special permission from the copyright owner(s), unless an exception applies." https://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-rights/remixing-public-domain-and-the-creative-commons-license/
What? Gosh no. I mean I know how people would phrase things if they were actually IN Asia (and apparently being somewhere under complete control).
Since when did China control Singapore? That's never happened even when Singapore was part of Malaya. Are you referring to control through foreign direct investments or something else?
I'm arguing that Synamax could ask. It's apparently possible to ask for the license from the copyright holder even when there's no official scheme for original game music. Usually, the problem is you don't have a fixed person to contact - not so in this case since he could ask the lawyers who contacted him. I'm also arguing that if he asked and they blew him off then screw Nintendo. Of course it's MUCH MUCH easier not to need to ask and just go through the licensing for songs that have already been released in the US - but, I'm arguing that it's not as impossible as Autie is making it out to be. Otherwise, logically speaking, people like Smooth McGroove wouldn't and couldn't be licensed and he's clearly stated that he's sorted that part out. Synamax clearly didn't.
They also place a premium on respect and I imagine the relatively Western concept of "ask forgiveness rather than permission" could easily be offensive.
More insults? Are you incapable of carrying a discussion without one? You know I haven't thrown insults here right so there's no need to do so yourself? My experience of TechDirt is it attracts commentators who react to the headline first and care little about getting a bit more detail about the story (classic case was the story about the romuniverse site lawsuit- large majority of the comments were raging against Nintendo removing classic ROMs when the lawsuit was focused on Switch ROMs). Back to the topic at hand, it is entirely reasonable to assume that he can ask said lawyers about how to get one (if there weren't any instructions given during the communications). You're assuming none were given - only Synamax knows what was written and whether any information was provided about how to get a license. No need to be so close minded about this. It's not outside the realms of probability for Synamax to ask them how much it would cost and how he could get one IF he was interested. The lawyers could, respond negatively or even with the equivalent of, "not our problem" but you're dead set against the possibility because, I can only guess, of prejudice. It's clear that other YouTubers can make a living out of music covers that includes videogame music. It's clear that there's a way to get licensed. It's not clear whether he tried or whether the costs were much too high to consider.
Did you consider that if the AC was living in a country controlled by China, the most likely term to use would be Chinese or East Asians or some other terms denoting Chinese people? I'm from Southeast Asia
What the hell? You actually thought was appropriate to say?
Nice insult. Now try to engage properly without them. He could still ask the copyright holder (and in this case, it seems like Nintendo's lawyers already contacted him so he doesn't need to spend time hunting around) and they could still grant one. If he tries and fails, he's free to make Nintendo into bigger asses, particularly if they tell him to get a license but refuse to provide one. As it stands, the facts are: - Synamax distributed monetised Nintendo cover songs on YouTube without any of the required licenses for sharing cover songs on YouTube - Nintendo's lawyers got in touch and said no, take them down, you need a compulsory - Synamax rejects the demand for a compulsory license and is disappointed at not being able to reach a compromise by having them demonetised (here's possibly where Nintendo could have exercised some leniency but it could lead to others seeing no wrong in going down the same route) The question I have is: Why was he happy for the videos to earn him money but not pay for the compulsory license when Nitnendo's lawyers got involved? He does go on to say that he could live with them being demonetised but that doesn't change the fact that they were originally monetised. Everyone knows by now that earning money off Nintendo's IP without permission is a good way to pain a target on your back. Especially in content distribution sites.
Please refer to Synamax's statement where Nintendo's lawyers said he needed to get a compulsory license. Bigger artists than him have successful careers that include doing videogame song/music covers - Smooth McGroove based his YouTube career on it. Smooth McGroove stated in an interview that he took steps to sort out the licensing and stuff behind the scenes. It's quite clear Synamax didn't/wouldn't do it.
I've got no further idea - best to ask him I'd say
The license would help you clear yourself from a copyright claim
I imagine the primary issue is that he was monetising those covers. You already always need a license to distribute any cover song anyway but monetising them without having a license was always going to be a risk.
Synamax already mentions that Nintendo's lawyers said he needs to get a 'compulsory license' (which basically means means the rights holder can't stop you from releasing your cover song if you get that license)
Smooth McGroove already sorted out the licensing etc
That won't happen because he's already sorted out the licensing etc unlike Synamax and other previously affected people - "As most YouTube artists rely on ad revenue for a living, do you have concerns about the way Content ID claims are being handled? What impact has this had? Content ID concerns everyone that does music or gaming on YouTube. I happen to do both, so I definitely have concerns about this. It's made me seek out licensing and other protections for my work, which I've had success with so far." https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/03/ninterview_smooth_mcgroove_on_a_life_in_game_music
Re: Re:
I know your comment was a month old but had to correct it. We're definitely not talking about old ROMs here (Techdirt didn't get that right either as they just assumed it). The site was actively distributing Switch and 3DS ROMs (and featuring Switch ROMs on the homepage). The guy also charged for premium access to the site and made an easy $30+k annually sitting on his bum. The case notes that Nintendo specifically called out the Switch and 3DS ROMs on the site. Users were barely interested in the retro ROMs. The vast amount of Nintendo ROM downloads were for the DS and the Switch.