That absolutely is not true. The concept/idea to make the code they programmed is the IP, and perhaps the code itself if it were specifically copyrighted, but a derivative of an after-effect of that code re-transmitted on another device that someone else made is NOT the IP at all or even close. The footage might be OF an example of the IP in use and spun off into a commentary, but the footage most definitely does not belong to the IP's owners, or require permission to exist, any more than the images of memories in your mind of watching a movie belong to the movie-makers and you'd require their permission to remember it and have to pay for that. Companies might fight specific examples of IP abuse when they encounter it, but that doesn't give them ownership of what people do or publish in relation to it, and most examples I've seen of companies fighting it they're clearly in the wrong and are just abusing their clout. What you're suggesting would have horrendous consequences if it were true, we'd be in a defacto worldwide police state of mind control if it were so. Someone who comes up with any idea would own everything anyone decided to do related to it, including talking and thinking about it, not just the making commentary footage example you use here.

(Yes I used a grandiose example of memory/mind control that would never likely come up, but your idea here of how things worked really offended me as potentially exceedingly dangerous. Copyright issues are already screwed up enough that someone might actually try to do something like that when the technology for it comes into being).

Sounds like a company still smoldering from the trainwreck that was its most recent console is starting to go into "check under the couch cushions for spare change" mode.

Sad, Nintendo.

Maybe because they are not taking the entirety of the game? As long as they arent offering a streaming service for me to play the actual game, Onlive style, they are not violating anything. The court cases are coming only in your imagination. And that angry Simon you keep posting is just as bitter towards little people making money as you are.

No one has mentioned a court case, which is irrelevant. Nintendo is taking the revenues as they should. Simply Simon is pretty much just summarizing the general opinion at SA, and I happen to agree with it.
Yup that about sums it up. People whining about Ninntendo taking action are being whiny and over-entitled. LPing as a career fucking lol.
Edit: Hell you even failed to understand it, he does monetize his vids. He makes money out of it. He is not pissed at nintendo for taking it since he's been seeing that coming for a long while, and used it as an EXTRA, he knew that was going to end and thus did not make it important for his financials.
On the other hand, he is at SA, at there we don't LP for popularity or money (for the most part, there was drama because in a silly sonic series the LPers indicated that they were doing it to get into an affiliate partnership. It was funny) but because of WANTING TO SHOW the game.

Finally, a post where I can try and rail this thread back on track rather than watching two users argue that its perfectly legal for Nintendo. It may be, but it's downright boneheaded and awful for PR.

Now, what area would you rather have Nintendo look into for money.

You are right there, I have no clue who he or SA is. Dont see the relevance either. People complaining about career youtubers are just whiny over entitled scallywags who are healous at anyone capable of making money on their own. There wont be any court cases, there wont be any laws against it either. So you keep dreaming about a world where everything is forbidden under IP laws.

@Darvond I think everyone agrees that its extremely stupid of Nintendo to do this, so let me just have my little arguement with the only guy who thinks this is was a great move of them.

SA is SomethingAwful. A internet webplace. The whole concept of "Let's Plays" started there. It continues to have the highest quality ones on the internet as well. Completely relevant when Let's Plays are discussed.
Career youtube LPers that are complaining about it ARE over-entitled. Their gravy train was going to end since it is not a sustainable model.
There may not be court cases, but at least the content producers are taking note of the phenomenon. Nintendo is in the right to request the ad revenue to go to them.

It is only slightly less silly than minecraft modders whining when people repack their mods and they don't get adfly revenue. Only slightly less.

Edit: Hell, it is not even something NEW at all. Microsoft does not allow youtube users to monetize footage from their games.

Fakeedit: You seem to think that I want things to be forbidden. No, people are not forbidden from making the LPs, that would be stupid. People are not ALLOWED to profit from them though. That would not kill LPs, if anything it would make commercial LP channels unviable (good on that), but people that actually care to show the game would still do it. It was not monetized in the beggining, and extremely high quality material has been produced without the need of video monetization.
Hell, if anything ads detract from the LPs, disrupting flow and interrupting view. Another of the reasons why I believe that LP monetization is the worst thing to happen to the hobby.

These threads always seem to come down to people making a little bit of money and how wrong that is. All that does is strengthen my belief that intellectual property is just age-old monopoly privilege rent-seeking, or protectionism, rearing its ugly head again.

I think this should always be established in these kinds of discussions. IP isn't property in any sense compared to what the requirements are for regular property, it's an exclusive right, a government-granted monopoly. It's not like owning an apple tree, where if someone takes my apples or cuts down my tree to use the wood in their smokehouse it would be theft. It's not theft for my neighbor to plant his own apple tree though. IP is like owning an apple tree, and, to take it to a logical conclusion. murdering anyone else who tries to plant apple trees on their own property so that I can be the exclusive supplier of apples. It's forbidding one's neighbors from planting their own apple trees, or even to obtain apples given by a friend.

If it should be considered property, then its ownership should be indefinite. If people think about what that would mean for a moment, many will realize that scenario is one that would be too paralyzing to do anything. I always get replies about creation when I try to discuss this too, so I'll post this right away - http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf pp. 26-33

If that is established, the discussion can go where it should about whether an exclusive right like this is beneficial or not. Before I get into an argument about it, I'll state that I think that any benefits are far outweighed by disadvantages so I think it's bad. I'm confident that I can summon significant proof to support my position too, or people could Google some terms. I personally find it repulsive that people need to ask permission to make money when they're not depriving anyone else of anything but are, in fact, adding value to the whole pie. That's just me though, maybe other people feel differently, and that's fine, but who should the burden of proof be on? I think it should be on people that want to use violence in the form of government intervention to grant a coercive monopoly right on a nonrivalrous product. I've heard many arguments but haven't ever seen any proof other than it can be used to redistribute from many people to a few people.

Now, if people had argued that Nintendo has an interest or part ownership in Google and Youtube while LPers don't, that's something I could understand and wouldn't get riled up about it. I still think it wouldn't work well in a world without IP though because many people will just go somewhere else or build there own site if they can't be threatened with intellectual property. Or not if Youtube is too damn convenient to pass on.

Some games that don't make me react with profound ennui would be nice. I remember when a new upcoming Mario game was a big deal; now it seems one of those "New" Super Mario games comes out every other month, and they all look and play the same and their soundtracks are full of people singing like sheep.

...Right, but if not Mario, then what?

They are solid but unremarkable in single player.

Multiplayer though, they are amazing.
The DS game came out on 2006, the Wii one came out on 2009, the WiiU and 3DS ones came out on 2012, so not quite every other month haha.

Set up a company-owned studio, much like Retro Studios.

Recruit a few successful indie developers who had good gameplay ideas to this new studio, no matter how ugly or hipster-pandering their games' artwork was -- under the condition that this new studio hire some skilled artists and musicians to do the visuals, music, and other presentation-related parts. This means whatever they make has a chance of being a fun game, but which doesn't resemble an ugly DeviantArt webcomic.

Presto, new IP.

Hey, at this point, anything's worth a try.

But at this point all the good indies aren't in good sitting with Nintendo, considering that most Japanese indies have been scooped up or are keeping quiet. I mean the last indy from Japan I heard of was La-Mulana.

Do you even know what entitled means? It is used in a derogatory sense to complain about people who do nothing but want money. How do people working on letsplays fit into this category? It is much more fitting to call YOU or Nintendo entitled for complaining that they get the money for other peoples work. And yes it is the letsplayers work, Nintendos work is coding the games and selling them to PLAYERS. Letsplayers work is making a fun show for the players to watch. Just like reviewers make a review based on Nintendos work and profit from it. Just like news programs make money off of the new stuff that went wrong at the newest MSFT console by showing and commenting it.

There are no court cases because you are simply wrong, Nintendo is not in the right. There wont be any either, at least none that go beyond the frivolous lawsuit dismissed stage.

A)Most youtube LPs are low effort playthroughs. Very low effort. Badly done. Badly played.
B)The LPers complaining about the loss of revenue are in the wrong, doing LPs for monetary compensation as the main reason is idiotic (once again, this has been coming for a LONG time, f they got while the getting was good and got their cake an eat it too, good on them). If the main reason why you are doing an LP is just to get paid and/or epenis, the end result will very likely be crap.
C)No, seriously, expecting to get paid for making a low effort, player-focused Youtube LP IS being an over-entitled whiner. It even fits perfectly with how you are using/defining that term. If they are considering that their Nintendo-focused Youtube LP deserves cash compensation, well, surely they can use the titanic amount of comedic/interesting talents to generate 100% original content (in the case of LPs. The case for reviews is different since once again, in a review the focus is the CRITICAL ASPECT, not the showing off of the game. And if the LP is more about the LPer than the game, shit, that is also doing it massively wrong.)
D)Once again, this has been coming for a long time. I remember less whining about Microsoft expressly being against monetization of footage/derivatives of their games. There was more complaining (and deservedly so! It was a dick move) when Sega indiscriminately got channels blocked just for mentioning Shining Force.