Support NeoGAF

[epmode]

What can't you understand? That someone who owns an Intellectual Property has ultimate rights over it, and if someone else is making money from that IP without consent they have a legitimate copyright claim? What if the IP holder such as an Indie Dev is actually financially hurt...is it now okay to enforce copyright law?

If the stuff being flagged is illegal (and that's a big if), copyright law is fucked and needs to be overhauled.

I don't see the point in arguing from the perspective of a corporate legal department that would have a hard time proving that their client was actually financially harmed by a gameplay video.

 

[PotionBleue]

What does this mean for video game fan music and fan art/animations? Is that claimed too?

If people do not enable monetization on their videos, they're totally fine. This whole mess only affects YouTube partners/affiliates/whatever-you-call-it.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I can't wrap my head around people applauding this policy. Do you really think that the publishers are financially hurt by videogame videos? Or are you just resentful of people making money from works produced by other people?

At least Valve has it right: http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html

I don't care if they're financially hurt by it. I'm not resentful that other people make money off these videos but I believe that the creators should have the right to not allow the people to do it.

 

[dakun]

You could argue free promotion for the game if the YouTuber gives a favorable impression. What if the popular Let's Player shits all over that indie game?

It would still be seen by millions of people that would've never heard of the game otherwise.. the chance of a fraction of those buying the game is still better than being ignored by the gaming community.

The vast majority of Indie Devs will not be the problem in terms of restricting Youtubers to make money.. it's big publishers.

And copyright law is not a open and shut case as you describe it.. Fair use laws are there for a reason, and if used correctly does enable people to make money of creative work that uses IP from another party.

 

[zeldablue]

If people do not enable monetization on their videos, they're totally fine. This whole mess only affects YouTube partners/affiliates/whatever-you-call-it.

Soooo if you monetize something game related but don't use any official sounds, footage or imagery...you're okay?

 

[PotionBleue]

Soooo if you monetize something game related but don't use any official sounds, footage or imagery...you're okay?

If it's 100% your original content then yes. You brought up fan art before so there's still copyright concerns behind that, just like remixes/samples etc.

 

[jakonovski]

The freaky thing with this is, from a fair use perspective, the monetization aspect is pretty irrelevant for the publisher or developer. Whether the video is monetized or not, it doesn't change the publisher/developer's position one bit. Whatever damage or benefit there might be, will be there independent of monetization. For the LPer on the other hand, a revenue stream is necessary to keep producing videos.

I suspect this is one of the major reasons why they don't want to try it in court.

 

[syllogism]

The freaky thing with this is, from a fair use perspective, the monetization aspect is pretty irrelevant. Whether the video is monetized or not, it doesn't change the publisher/developer's position one bit. Whatever damage or benefit there might be, will be there independent of monetization.

I suspect this is one of the major reasons why they don't want to try it in court.

The character of the use, e.g. commercial or something else, is an element of the fair use test, so I wouldn't say it is pretty irrelevant from fair use perspective.

 

[PotionBleue]

The freaky thing with this is, from a fair use perspective, the monetization aspect is pretty irrelevant. Whether the video is monetized or not, it doesn't change the publisher/developer's position one bit. Whatever damage or benefit there might be, will be there independent of monetization.

I suspect this is one of the major reasons why they don't want to try it in court.

I don't see how it is irrelevant, monetization is a commercial purpose and some people can get thousands of dollars per video. Multiply that by the number of vids and it could be considered as potential loss for content owner as regards fair use even if they're big publishers.

 

[ScribbleD]

It would still be seen by millions of people that would've never heard of the game otherwise.. the chance of a fraction of those buying the game is still better than being ignored by the gaming community.

The vast majority of Indie Devs will not be the problem in terms of restricting Youtubers to make money.. it's big publishers.

And copyright law is not a open and shut case as you describe it.. Fair use laws are there for a reason, and if used correctly does enable people to make money of creative work that uses IP from another party.

Ride to Hell: Retribution is an example of this. Nobody seems to like it, and it became known largely due to a torrent of LPers playing it to make fun of how bad it is. Despite all that negative attention, people were still exposed to it and bought it as evidenced by the flood of comments that go something along the lines of "I know this is probably gonna be terrible, but I have to get it to see how bad it gets."

 

[mr-paul]

From the sounds of it, the problem isn't the copyright holders themselves, it is Youtube's database. They create a Content ID database, containing all copyrighted content. It then automatically flags up anything that matches something in a database.

So in these cases where video makers are getting an ID match with something that isn't the publisher of the game, for example BAFTA or Hearst Magazines which have been mentioned in this thread somewhere, it is because it is matching a video from these companies which they have identified to Youtube as having copyrighted content that belongs to them, even if it also contains material from video game publishers.

So instead of getting a claim from the copyright holder of the footage that is being infringed, these Youtube channels are getting ID matches with other sites which have probably used this content with the copyright holders permission, or under fair use. Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of BAFTA etc. were getting Content ID claims of their own!

I don't know where I stand on whether people should be allowed to make money on Let's Plays, but it is clear that it is Youtube's system causing the problems, not the actions of the copyright holders themselves.

 

[Nokterian]

I can't wrap my head around people applauding this policy. Do you really think that the publishers are financially hurt by videogame videos? Or are you just resentful of people making money from works produced by other people?

At least Valve has it right: http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html

<3 valve..gonna make Dota 2 video's for sure and stay with PC games that only have policy like this even Devolver Digital is ok with it and Codemasters even Blizzard.

 

[jakonovski]

I don't see how it is irrelevant, monetization is a commercial purpose and some people can get thousands of dollars per video. Multiply that by the number of vids and it could be considered as potential loss for content owner as regards fair use even if they're big publishers.

Potential loss how? They're not making anything that competes for those ad dollars. That's the thing, they're explicitly out of that market, and by allowing the videos to exist without monetization, they pretty much admit the videos by themselves are not harmful to them.

 

[dave is ok]

I wonder if Nintendo is going to go to all the tattoo shops and make sure they know not to give people tattoos that are derivative of their works.

 

[MADGAME]

If the stuff being flagged is illegal (and that's a big if), copyright law is fucked and needs to be overhauled..

No argument there

It would still be seen by millions of people that would've never heard of the game otherwise.. the chance of a fraction of those buying the game is still better than being ignored by the gaming community.

The vast majority of Indie Devs will not be the problem in terms of restricting Youtubers to make money.. it's big publishers.

And copyright law is not a open and shut case as you describe it.. Fair use laws are there for a reason, and if used correctly does enable people to make money of creative work that uses IP from another party.

Fair point but again, what if you created something someone else is using? Would you be satisfied with free promotion if the person using it is making money and you aren't?

 

[PotionBleue]

Potential loss how? They're not making anything that competes for those ad dollars. That's the thing, they're explicitly out of that market, and by allowing the videos to exist without monetization, they pretty much admit the videos by themselves are not harmful to them.

People could watch the videos instead of buying the game while still getting a similar experience. Games that rely heavily on cutscenes, Just Dance, etc.

 

[zakislam]

Here's what rajmangaminghd said in response to NeoGAF:

https://www.facebook.com/RajmanGamingHD

Here's what I don't understand: he said he removed the videos Gamersyde wanted (he stole 12 videos from them and then I can only assume he claimed them as his own by plastering watermarks everywhere on them as he's shown on one of the videos he stole from them) but one of his most viewed video is the Killzone one from Gamersyde that is still live: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xdpSw8aaEE

 

[jacksepticeye]

If the stuff being flagged is illegal (and that's a big if), copyright law is fucked and needs to be overhauled.

They do need to be overhauled because the internet happened completely changing how this stuff is shared and monetised

Here's what rajmangaminghd said in response to NeoGAF

He's one of the worst. He takes footage and trailers from different places and poses them as his own all the time. Plus he NEVER talks over his footage and he's basically profiting off straight footage without adding much to it. I don't agree with his channel at all

 

[jakonovski]

People could watch the videos instead of buying the game while still getting a similar experience. Games that rely heavily on cutscenes, Just Dance, etc.

That has not changed. The videos are still there and you can watch them instead of playing.

 

[IRQ]

WOW. I honestly didn't know about this stuff before Watching the OP video. Good one BTW.

I feel sorry for those guys, like the one on the video.

Never knew you get paid for YouTube video.

How does this thing work and who is paying?

 

[Randam]

Here's what I don't understand: he said he removed the videos Gamersyde wanted (he stole 12 videos from them and then I can only assume he claimed them as his own by plastering watermarks everywhere on them as he's shown on one of the videos he stole from them) but one of his most viewed video is the Killzone one from Gamersyde that is still live: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xdpSw8aaEE

RajmanGaming HD2 minutes ago

NO this video is not from Gamersyde!!! Before you gaffers come here stating that, BlimBlim made a typo on Gaf some time ago and many thought I got this video from Gamersyde. This is an official Sony video that was released, anyone can get confirmation from Gamersyde themselves that this is NOT their video.&#65279;

 

[jacksepticeye]

WOW. I honestly didn't know about this stuff before Watching the OP video. Good one BTW.

I feel sorry for those guys, like the one on the video.

Never knew you get paid for YouTube video.

How does this thing work and who is paying?

Ad revenue is the source of the money. That's why ads play on youtube videos now, they generate money for a network and that network pays the uploader while taking a cut of the money. That's why partnerships were brought in as they pay fees to allow hosting of game footage

 

[crazyrabbits]

I don't see how it is irrelevant, monetization is a commercial purpose and some people can get thousands of dollars per video. Multiply that by the number of vids and it could be considered as potential loss for content owner as regards fair use even if they're big publishers.

The problem is that the nature of fair use as it relates to monetized LP's/gaming videos is so grey - as we discussed a couple pages back - that the current solution is incredibly damaging.

The movie industry faced this once before, and how they handled it was terrible. Major studios accused sites like Mininova/Suprnova and The Pirate Bay of taking profits away from them due to pirating copyrighted material. However, that doesn't seem to have had a demonstrable impact on the industry at all, as many shows/films that were released prior to or on release day enjoyed better word of mouth and/or sales figures. You can point to cases like Battlestar Galactica/LOST/24/etc. for examples.

Obviously, it's not the same situation as this, but the principle still applies. You are greatly simplifying the issue - there are so many specific variants, with the current system being little more than a bandaid being placed over a gushing wound.

This is going to effect far more than just video games - every person with monetized material on YT is going to be effected.

 

[zakislam]

RajmanGaming HD2 minutes ago

NO this video is not from Gamersyde!!! Before you gaffers come here stating that, BlimBlim made a typo on Gaf some time ago and many thought I got this video from Gamersyde. This is an official Sony video that was released, anyone can get confirmation from Gamersyde themselves that this is NOT their video.&#65279;

Still, he doesn't have to call us "clowns".

 

[Kibbles]

I'm confused about that KSI thing, I don't know anything about him or that, but it appears to be that YouTube flagged himself for copyright infringing himself? lol what. How did they even get permission to the content ID for his music to claim it against himself? I'm so confused

 

[PotionBleue]

That has not changed. The videos are still there and you can watch them instead of playing.

That was not my point (maybe I shouldn't have written &#8220;could&#8221. I'm saying there is a possibility the videos can be considered as market harm in several instances:

THE EFFECT OF DEFENDANT'S USE ON THE POTENTIAL MARKET OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK

"This factor is generally held to be the most important factor. This factor considers the effect that the defendant's use has on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work. The court will consider whether the use is a direct market substitute for the original work. The court may also consider whether harm to a potential market exists.

This factor is key to the whole analysis, and considers whether the new use of copyrighted content directly competes with the original work. To decide this, ask yourself if your use of copyright content would be likely to serve as a substitute for the original. In the context of online video, could someone watch your video instead of buying the original work and still obtain the same value as from the original? If the answer to that question is yes, your video is likely not fair use. If it is no, that weighs significantly in favor of your video being considered fair use.

ChillingEffects also notes: The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. ... It is important to note that courts recognize that some market harm may come from fair uses such as parodies or negative reviews, but that such market harm does not militate against a finding of fair use." This means that in the context of a lawsuit, the copyright holder would have the burden to prove that your use does harm their market. This market harm must be shown to come from direct competition between your work and the original. It is not enough to say that your use criticizes the original and might make someone not want to buy it. That is still fair use.

For YT gaming videos the main argument that will be brought against fair use will be the amount of copyrighted work used, but the monetization/commercial purpose aspect may well also weigh against fair use.

 

[jacksepticeye]

Still, he doesn't have to call us "clowns".

The problem is still his walkthroughs, some people do indeed like walkthroughs with no commentary but they're not covered under fair use. You're not bringing anything extra to the table and just basically showing off the entirety of a game and nothing else.

At least adding commentary adds a personality and a sort of branding to a channel that people end up coming to watch but profiting from straight walkthroughs with nothing else added feels wrong

 

[Randam]

The problem is still his walkthroughs, some people do indeed like walkthroughs with no commentary but they're not covered under fair use. You're not bringing anything extra to the table and just basically showing off the entirety of a game and nothing else.

At least adding commentary adds a personality and a sort of branding to a channel that people end up coming to watch but profiting from straight walkthroughs with nothing else added feels wrong

jip.
with commentary atleast you put some work into it.

so if GG flaged his killzone videos, it is fine by me.
when those claims arnt legit(from some fraud) and GG is fine with it, okay.

 

[jakonovski]

That was not my point (maybe I shouldn't have written “could”). I'm saying there is a possibility the videos can be considered as market harm in several instances:



For YT gaming videos the main argument that will be brought against fair use will be the amount of copyrighted work used, but the monetization/commercial purpose aspect may well also weigh against fair use.

And my point was, if the courts were to grant fair use, they'd likely grant it regardless of the monetization issue. Because the monetization stage is not the one that could inflict damage. And on top of that, since the rights holders are not taking videos down, they're basically admitting they don't view the videos themselves as a threat. It's hard to claim damages if your own actions demostrate you don't believe in it yourself.

 

[PotionBleue]

And my point was, if the courts were to grant fair use, they'd likely grant it regardless of the monetization issue. Because the monetization stage is not the one that could inflict damage. And on top of that, since the rights holders are not taking videos down, they're basically admitting they don't view the videos themselves as a threat. It's hard to claim damages if your own actions demostrate you don't believe in it yourself.

They can claim they're not taking the videos down because the damage in sales is compensated by the ad revenue they get from videos. (Of course that only applies to publishers that don't allow users to monetize.)

 

[Naminator]

Here's what rajmangaminghd said in response to NeoGAF:

https://www.facebook.com/RajmanGamingHD




Here's what I don't understand: he said he removed the videos Gamersyde wanted (he stole 12 videos from them and then I can only assume he claimed them as his own by plastering watermarks everywhere on them as he's shown on one of the videos he stole from them) but one of his most viewed video is the Killzone one from Gamersyde that is still live: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xdpSw8aaEE

I never liked that guy because he is a hardcore Capcom dick rider(or maybe just a corporate shill in general), he was defending the SFxT disc locked content a while go, and just has a bad attitude in general.

Nice to see that he didn't change a god damn bit.

 

[jakonovski]

They can claim they're not taking the videos down because the damage in sales is compensated by the ad revenue they get from videos. (Of course that only applies to publishers that don't allow users to monetize.)

Wait, do rights claimers automatically get money from non-monetized YT videos? Because that would be beyond sleazy. In any case, since the LPer's own performance is also under copyright, how could the rights holders claim fair use of their own, if they just claimed the exact same situation would not apply to the LPer? I'm talking in case it went to the courts, since YT probably has all sorts of disgusting TOS tricks up its sleeve.

 

[SomeOrangeGuy]

What gets me is that if you have one of these claims, the video is still monetized, and 100% goes to the claimant. If you're dinged for 15 seconds of a 5 minute video, then the supposed content owner is literally stealing money from you since a majority of the work (and the reason it was monetized) wasn't done by them at all. That's... super bad form.

On the other hand, Let's Play videos were always to me (at best) a gray area, since the primary reason someone watches them is to see something in a game without having to play it. A publisher might have a valid position to state that they are losing revenue because the people watching the video might not be buying and playing the game themselves -- if the video did not exist, neither would the alternative to consuming the game itself directly. And maybe the problem isn't even so much that the game footage exists as the fact that someone else is making money off of it; like others have said, the videos aren't coming down, but the advertising revenue is going to the claimant instead.

Yes, the Let's Player put the effort into playing the game and making the commentary (although the latter can be debatable depending on how good the commentary is), but it's a much different beast than writing a review, selecting clips, doing the editing, and putting something else on the screen besides a direct feed of the gameplay for 10 minutes at a time.

 

[PotionBleue]

Wait, do rights claimers automatically get money from non-monetized YT videos? Because that would be beyond sleazy. In any case, since the LPer's own performance is also under copyright, how could the rights holders claim fair use of their own, if they just claimed the exact same situation would not apply to the LPer? I'm talking in case it went to the courts, since YT probably has all sorts of disgusting TOS tricks up its sleeve.

Yes, claimants automatically get most of ad revenue from users uploading the allegedly copyrighted work (YouTube takes a small cut ~20%) if they chose so. They also have the possibility of blocking the video, or not getting ad revenue at all (which rarely happens as you can guess), and each of these options can be different depending on the viewer's country.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370

I doubt you can claim exclusive rights on something if in first place it infringes someone else's copyright

 

[zakislam]

Yes, claimants automatically get most of ad revenue from users uploading the allegedly copyrighted work (YouTube takes a small cut ~20%) if they chose so. They also have the possibility of blocking the video, or not getting ad revenue at all (which rarely happens as you can guess), and each of these options can be different depending on the viewer's country.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370

I doubt you can claim exclusive rights on something if in first place it infringes someone else's copyright

It's actually 45 percent that YouTube takes from anyone's and everyone's ads on the site.

 

[jakonovski]

I doubt you can claim exclusive rights on something if in first place it infringes someone else's copyright

Youtube can, that's what their system is doing. Claimants can apparently get all the money, regardless of how much work the Youtuber put in the video. It's actually worse like this than if the videos were just straight up taken down, because this system gives the incentive to not play fair. And guess what, the individual will always lose because Google and the claimants have vastly superior resources.

The rich get richer and the rest of us get jack shit once again.

 

[Dusk Golem]

Something that should be mentioned and has been annoying me the most is that matched third-party content doesn't just affect partnered channels or people who monetize, I've had cases today of videos being blocked in countries or worldwide, or having the whole videos audio track removed. Also just because its only matched content now doesn't mean that it won't be removed or given a strike later. A lot of YouTubers remove matched third party content videos as the developer can later decide they don't want the video or content about what the video is about on YouTube and can have it removed/striked later.And this applies to all youtube game videos that are not with Managed accounts.

People also need to know that this is only affecting non-partnered and affiliated partner accounts, not managed partner accounts. I see a lot of PewDiePie comments, but I GUARANTEE you as he is the biggest YT channel he has a managed account, so this won't be affecting him.

 

[PotionBleue]

Youtube can, that's what their system is doing. Claimants can apparently get all the money, regardless of how much work the Youtuber put in the video. It's actually worse like this than if the videos were just straight up taken down, because this system gives the incentive to not play fair. And guess what, the individual will always lose because Google and the claimants are all too happy to keep all the money.

What are the copyrighted works infringed by YouTube?
Companies and users who agree with the content ID system agree that YouTube takes its cut.

 

[jakonovski]

What are the copyrighted works infringed by YouTube?
Companies and users who agree with the content ID system agree that YouTube takes its cut.

I meant the content ID system where rights claimants can just up and take all the money away from the original uploader, even when there is no dispute that it's mostly the original uploader's work. Sorry for the confusion. Youtube merely does whatever allows it to take its cut for as long as possible.

 

[UnrealEck]

So many bitter people in this thread.

You didn't like what I wrote so you call me bitter.
lol. Isn't it you then that's bitter?

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

Why? How does society benefit from giving this power to the so called content owners?

I don't know about you, but if I wrote a song, then had someone take the song and sell it as their own work, I'd be pretty pissed.

 

[neshcom]

People also need to know that this is only affecting non-partnered and affiliated partner accounts, not managed partner accounts. I see a lot of PewDiePie comments, but I GUARANTEE you as he is the biggest YT channel he has a managed account, so this won't be affecting him.

Serious question: why would he have a "multichannel account" if he only runs one channel (I'm assuming this because I don't really watch him enough to know) and he can monetize through a standard account? I mean, I get the obvious perk of avoiding CID, but how would he get that status with only one channel? I don't really know the YouTube backlands of partnership and networking,

 

[jakonovski]

I don't know about you, but if I wrote a song, then had someone take the song and sell it as their own work, I'd be pretty pissed.

Are you saying that Vinny is trying to sell someone else's song as his own? Also, you didn't answer the question. How does society benefit from allowing From Software to block GB's Dark Souls video?

 

[Dead Man]

Bad comparison. Basketball and cities aren't Intellectual Properties. Try again.

The point is that practically they are the the same thing, just not legally. SO if the argument for this is anything but strictly legalistic, then basketball videos should be taken down.

 

[KillerIsJed]

We really need to encourage all these content creators to either dispute the claims (they most likely won't win in most cases) or best of all REMOVE THE VIDEO.

Publishers want their cake and they want to eat it too. They free advertising as well as the revenue from the free advertising. Give them neither. I'm making all the videos they claim private. Thus far it has only been Nintendo and Square Enix for me. They won't get a fucking dime / free advertising from my videos.

 

[MADGAME]

The point is that practically they are the the same thing, just not legally. SO if the argument for this is anything but strictly legalistic, then basketball videos should be taken down.

The flaw in the argument is that they are not the same . No one owns a city. No one owns the sport of basketball. Someone owns the game/movie/other IP you are using to make money on YouTube.

 

[Dead Man]

The flaw in the argument is that they are not the same . No one owns a city. No one owns the sport of basketball. Someone owns the game/movie/other IP you are using to make money on YouTube.

Board games are owned IP's. Hasbro chasing people uploading videos of Monopoly? And the only reason sports are not copyrighted is because they are not written works, they are still somebodies creation that you are using for free. Morally, they are exactly the damn same.

If the argument is that you are profiting from somebody else's work, then the legal status of the work is irrelevant. If you are making a purely legalistic argument, then you are missing what a lot of people are saying. Very few people are saying they can't make these claims, people are saying either they shouldn't make them, or they shouldn't be able to make them.

 

[MADGAME]

Board games are owned IP's. Hasbro chasing people uploading videos of Monopoly? And the only reason sports are not copyrighted is because they are not written works, they are still somebodies creation that you are using for free. Morally, they are exactly the damn same.

If the argument is that you are profiting from somebody else's work, then the legal status of the work is irrelevant. If you are making a purely legalistic argument, then you are missing what a lot of people are saying. Very few people are saying they can't make these claims, people are saying either they shouldn't make them, or they shouldn't be able to make them.

Not sure how copyright laws affect board games, but if they do then it would be up to Hasbro whether or not they would want to pursue compensation for someone using Monopoly for monetary gain without their consent. It is within their rights to do so. Just because they don't means no one else should? Valve, Codemasters, Rebellion and others have stated they do not mind the use of their IP's in monetized videos. Since they allow it, everyone else should forfeit their rights?

I don't believe I'm missing what people are saying as you suggested above; I've read every comment in the thread. This particular argument stemmed from those attempting to justify it by claiming "free advertising", "we've been doing it this whole time, why now", "you just want people to lose their homes", "anyone who agrees with this is a jealous hater", etc as if that justifies overriding the rights of IP holders.

There are some good points on both sides of the argument, but ultimately the law is the law even if you don't agree with it. My personal opinion is that it would be nice for those who upload videos to not have to deal with it to the degree that is happening now, especially the very broken YouTube system.

 

[sykoex]

Honest question, could a legit TV show get away with, let's say, having an entire season where they just play TLOU and comment on it? I know MST3K had to do the legwork of getting broadcasting rights for the movies they riffed, but that might be different since it's movies and not games which are interactive pieces of software.

Also, how does Game Center CX deal with this? Do they have agreements with game companies?

 

[beastworship]

is it wrong for me to feel indifferent or even slightly happy about this, perhaps i'm just jealous i've never had the ambition to jump on this gold rush and fail horribly. with me it's short term interest followed by quickly moving onto the next thing never wanting to hear or see the previous activity again and i'm well moved on from youtube gaming. totalbiscuit, giantbomb and classic game room are the only youtube gaming videos i watch now, first two because their strong opinions i've grown to value and cgr because it has good vibes. unless i'm stuck in a place or want to see something done differently i'll never watch lets plays and even if there was no money in it there would still be people posting them because they enjoy the process.