The problem here is that there are multiple interpretations of the phrasing "Weve just been informed by Nintendo of America Inc. that we do not have permission to broadcast Super Smash Bros. Melee" floating around in the thread.
The stance you're taking, as I understand it, is that Nintendo could have said something along the lines of 'You do not have permission to Stream Smash Bros. without first filing an agreement" or maybe even "If it's not too much trouble, could you sign this agreement to stream our game, pretty please? If not, I'm really sorry, but I'm afraid we can't let you stream it." and that this was translated as 'We don't have permission, can't stream, sorry guys.'
The stance it seems most other people are taking is that Nintendo said "You don't have permission to stream our game."
You're accusing people of making assumptions (and by extension, accusing them of being wrong) when you yourself are making an assumption. I don't feel like you have successfully debunked the second camp of thought here by just arguing semantics.
I think there's a pretty convincing reasons to side with the second camp, myself.
- If Nintendo approached EVO and asked them to file a form or cooperate in some way, it doesn't seem very likely that the EVO folks would respond by saying "Nintendo told us we don't have permission, so we're not going to stream it. We've changed our schedule accordingly" and then sign the papers, return them, and say "Nevermind! Nintendo changed their mind." Possible? I guess. Likely? Questionable. You can give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt on this since we don't know the exact specifics, but most people are siding with the much more transparent side not mired in the legal jungle of an international corporation (EVO), rather than making the assumption that they're full of shit.
- Nintendo has a history of being weird about this. MLG Ran into a problem with it in the past, where Nintendo wouldn't allow them to stream Smash Bros. Brawl tournaments, if I recall correctly. Plenty of folks in this thread have already brought up their weird relationship with let's plays and the like. Their own website specifically mentions that they do not grant permission for use of their properties:
So when they say 'You don't have Permission', and the underlying tone is 'Our general policy is to decline requests for permission', things don't look promising. I included the second paragraph for transparency, but I don't really think it applies.
I feel a bit like you're saying "You can't assume anything, so I'm going to assume the positive," which isn't a very conductive argument if you genuinely want to have a debate about it.
