Retro Gaming: September 2013

So the position YouTube (and therefore Google, also owners of Blogger) takes on monetizing Let's Plays is very odd to me.

"Video game content may be monetized if the associated step-by-step commentary is strictly tied to the live action being shown and provides instructional or educational value.

Videos simply showing a user playing a video game or the use of software for extended periods of time may not be accepted for monetization."

So, I need to talk. A walkthrough is not enough. I kind of want to remain anonymous, and not become some character on YouTube. I also do not have a commentary worthy mic set-up, and it will complicate the process. Some, but not all, of my videos have not been monetized due to this and there does not seem to be a clear criteria for this. You would think they would appreciate the free advertising and the free clicks I am giving them by uploading content. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a lowly end user, unworthy of advertising revenue. Unless of course I get another program to run at the same time as FRAPS and also a new microphone and describe what I am doing. Goody gumdrops. Sounds great.

I get the copyright issues at play here, but it seems like an awfully arbitrary distinction to require people to provide commentary over video games in order to make it more of an original product. It's still %99 the work of the programmers at the studio and %1 YouTuber work, talking while they play video games. I would be less bothered if there wasn't this legal wiggle room by saying "may" and other weasel words to justify basically any action.

I may allow you to do x. I may not allow you to do x. I may ban you from monetizing forever for doing x. May, might, maybe. See what I did there? Legally, I can now perform any arbitrary action. I have given myself all available options by way of ambiguous legal language. Hurray for IP lawyers!

Ugh. Ok. Said my piece.