 So, we're going to talk just briefly about Payday 2, because we're both excited for it coming to Switch. But instead of talking about our excitement for it for Switch, we're talking about a little story that's happening, because, hey, this podcast is on YouTube. We have a YouTube channel. We just hit 21,000 subscribers. Thanks. Awesome. Thank you guys. And they are doing something that, I think this might be the first it's ever happened. So, YouTube is going through this transitional phase where they are changing up their revenue streams. And they've implemented some new AI that's taking a while to learn, and a bunch of big popular channels are being hit financially really, really hard. And each three productions, which is a fairly big YouTube channel, is getting hit pretty hard by that. So that just sets us up a little bit, because they're not making as much money as they used to. In fact, they're making so little that they've even thought about leaving YouTube entirely, because it's ruining their livelihood. They might be one of those YouTubers that literally, they need that money coming in every month or they're screwed. Yeah. YouTube money comes in on a net 30 cycle. I know this because I run a YouTube channel. So every 30 days you get paid, and if they don't have enough money now, it means their next paycheck is going to be small. Right. Now, they wouldn't be in such financial trouble, however. If it wasn't for a lawsuit they have going on, and this lawsuit had to do over a parody video that they made of someone else's work, because what each production does, their comedy channel basically. They have some discussions, but they're basically a comedy channel. They spoof in parody and make fun of things. And there's a video that they made fun of and spoofed, and the guy got pretty upset about it, basically saying, oh, you plagiarized my entire work, which no, it's all satire comedy anyways. And came after them hard. And originally when they were fighting this lawsuit, first they kind of dismissed it, but then they had a lawyer that was working pro bono. And now the case got kind of serious, and so they had to up it to a more professional lawyer. And literally within a month that little lawyer fees were like $50,000. So if you want to know what it costs to have a really damn good lawyer, it's expensive. $50,000 just for a month of work. And they have months and months more work ahead of them. And Philip DeFranco, another popular YouTuber, he already raised like $170,000 for them through a GoFundMe to help pay the fees. Because the reason that he and maybe some of the YouTubers have kind of stood up for each history isn't just because they like them. It's because this lawsuit is about free speech on YouTube. It's about the ability to create content that can be critical and comedic and satire. Without another company being able to shut yourself down. It's one thing for companies like Nintendo to do their copyright claim and take all the money from it. This guy is shutting it down and then coming after them legally for money. And it's a fight that ultimately, no matter what the result is, probably won't affect most YouTubers. But it's a fight that a lot of YouTubers feel like it could, but it probably won't. I mean, if you look at the video that guy was in question, they did have a lot of clips from the original video, and that's kind of where the argument comes from. Like, oh, if you add all those clips together, it's almost my entire video. It's like, yeah, but you can't just ignore the stuff in between. That makes it not your original video. But because that's what they do sometimes. Sometimes they'll take a whole video and they'll chop it up and do like reactions and funny bits to it and stuff like that where, yeah, it ends up where the whole video is there, but it's split up over, you know, it was a five minute video and it got split up over like 20 minutes as they're making fun of it and doing the little skits and whatever. Basically, I have a feeling that if this was a review of that thing and it was all positive, yeah, exactly. Yeah. But this could almost set a precedence. It could. It could, you know, but YouTube's not involved in the lawsuit itself. So like this is outside of YouTube's scope, which is why I don't think YouTubers in general will be affected, but it is still something we want to happen. So how this has to do with Payday 2 is, is legal fees are expensive. H-rated productions is making like significantly less money in YouTube now to the point that Philip and Franco had to raise money to help them because they don't have the money to pay the lawyer. $50,000 is a lot of money. That's what most of us make in a year. Yeah. So it's like, that's, that's just insane. And that's what it is per month. So what Payday 2 developers are doing, they're releasing a $4.99 DLC pack that puts the two people from H-rated productions into the game. They're doing, they're selling this on Steam, I think right now. Hopefully on Nintendo Switch when Payday 2 comes out, because I will gladly buy this. Oh yeah, for sure. I mean, I'm not even a huge fan of H-rated history, but I support what they are trying to do in trying to not back down and settle. They're trying to be like, no, we firmly believe we are legally within our right. And a case like this hasn't really gone this high up in the courts in a long time, because most of the time it just gets settled outside of court. Yeah, yeah, definitely. So I'm going to pay that somewhere and everything's done. And they're not backing down. So, you know, I applaud it. They're releasing the $4.99 pack, and Payday 2 is taking zero cut of that DLC pack. None of it. All the money goes straight to H-rated productions to pay the legal fees. Great thing they're doing that this never happens. You never see the game. Now, this is a unique situation where the game developers are coming out to support the very people that often are under attack by game developers. YouTubers in general are under attack by game developers. All your stealing footage, your stealing this. When you're making all this money off this, playing our game, we should be making money off it. And here these people are like, dude, no, no. This is where you have the right to do what you're doing and we want to support what you're doing. Right. And we're not going to pay your legal fees for you, but we will offer an ability for fans to get some content that's a cameo appearances of you in a game. And then all that money goes to you. So then it's not just people giving you money to go for me to get something back in return. Right. And again, I don't know how popular this is going to be. I don't know how big Payday 2 is right now on Steam. But this is just a very interesting stance that I like seeing happen. And the only way I can get bigger than this is obviously if a AAA developer decided to do this. Right. Which AAA developers tend to be a little more greedy than that. So I don't see them ever being like, oh, hey, we'll do that and take none of the money from it. We made the characters, so yeah, no, they won't even do it. It's a charity act. Right. Exactly. That's very true. They're not going to get involved in a court battle over stealing content. Yeah. Because most AAA developers on the side are like, you probably shouldn't just do that. Then you wouldn't have to worry about it. Yeah. You're right. But anyways, it's just a very interesting thing I wanted to briefly mention because it's important. It is important what happens in this case, whether you think content creators such as myself should be using footage of games, should be using other people's footage to do things with, or if you feel like there's a certain line and it's been crossed. So even if you want the Bandhammer to come down, then you should be very interested in the outcome of this case. Right. If you believe in the right to free speech and the critiquing and the comedic effect and the satire of all this, then you really, you know, you have another way to support it if you didn't get in and like go find me at the time of this running. Right. My thing is, for the whole time of media, in order to review something, you've got to show something from that. Yeah. And that's the thing. You can't just review something without actually showing anything what you mean by it. Yes, this brings up a point. Because you can't, you could just sit there and make up complete BS. And you can't back it up with footage. Yeah. So there is this YouTube commenter. I won't name his name specifically in case he wants to stay anonymous. But he commented on one of the videos recently because I made an off-the-cuff remark about how much I don't like the Nintendo Creators Program and how I had to delay a video five days. And he made a response like, oh, I've made two Nintendo videos and it took four hours, not five days, and you're full of shit. And I couldn't, as I told him, that's good for you. That's not the case for everyone. Yeah. Like I can literally show you my upload date and I can show you my backend of my Nintendo's Creator Program if you want, and I can show you the final day it was approved. Like I can show you my history. Yeah. Showing that it took fucking five days to get approved. And that's the third time it's happened. It's taken four days before and three days the other day. So like I've never gotten four-hour approval. And maybe it's because I'm making, I don't know, I just didn't watch this guy's videos. Maybe it was like a two-minute clip. Yeah, right, exactly. Or it was like my videos are 10, 15, so it was 20 minutes long. Yeah. Or the case of the podcast, two hours long. Yeah. I purposely don't put Nintendo footage in our podcast because it's a weekly show. I can't have a week delay on a weekly show. Right, exactly. It's already bad enough that some of these, you know, that we segment this. So like the one we post on Friday might not be relevant anymore when we talked about it the Friday before. But imagine that I had to wait another week on top of that. Yeah. That would be terrible. Yeah, no. So this commenter came at me. And you guys, if you've ever been on YouTube or you've seen people talk about people making money on YouTube, you've seen these comments a dime a dozen. How content creators don't have a right to make money off YouTube videos when they're showing other people's work. Whether it's video game related or if they're critiquing someone's like movie or music or whatever, or even if they're just doing a comedy sketch and having some of that music or some of that movie, like a clip from that movie. Like if I, as an example, in one of my videos in the past, I put up a clip from SpongeBob one year later. Yeah, right. That's totally copyrighted and owned by Nickelodeon. They didn't come after me for it. Yeah. But they could have. Yeah. Legally, the precedent is there. I jacked one of their clips and used it in my video. And according to YouTube's policy, they can get my whole channel shut down if they wanted to. But there is a line where some people think you shouldn't be doing that. If you're creating, as they say, if you think you're so great, make 100% completely original content. At what point in time does that become almost impossible? I look at it like this. So do you go out to news organizations and tell them, hey, why don't you 100% of the time, make 100% completely original content? That means they can't use any video clip they didn't record themselves. Right, exactly. Yeah. So they might talk about, oh man, this tornado hit so-and-so, we don't have any film for the road. We got some from a local news station. Nope. Well, guess what? Don't do that. Anybody, like IGN or anything, that wants to see us. Yeah, literally, video game media would disappear. Yeah, you can't. It would disappear. You can't advertise because guess what? You didn't record that video. Yeah, and there's a thing. I am recording my own gameplay footage, but you're like, oh, but Nintendo owns that footage. It's like, also in fact, I disagree with you because Nintendo isn't the one physically playing the game. They did create the assets, they did create the game itself. They already got my 60 bucks. Exactly, they've already got their royalties off of it. And everyone else in the industry basically views this as free advertising. Right, exactly. Because it's not, you try to argue that it was a licensing type deal, and I'm like, no. It's called product placement in advertising. You think when you watch a movie, E.T., that they paid Domino's Pizza to put Domino's Pizza in that movie? No, Domino's Pizza paid them to be in the movie. Right, exactly. It's advertising, and what all of us on YouTube are doing are giving these games attention and advertising for free. And the thing is, these companies didn't have any problem with it until some of the attention was negative. Because ultimately, not everyone's gonna love your products. People are gonna come out and not let, there's people who don't like Breath of the Wild. That's just gonna be the case. They're wrong, but I'm kidding, I'm kidding. Well, there's stuff knowing that Nintendo at the end of the day could shut down those videos if they want. Yeah, right. To be fair to Nintendo, they haven't actually gone as far as to shut down videos. They've demonetized them, and then you go through the creators' program and you can't get it approved anyways. So Nintendo hasn't used their authority to do it yet, but they have the ability to. And this lawsuit and everything going on, this is all about the belief that we have the right to do this kind of stuff. And I firmly believe I have all the right in the world to put video game footage up on my videos. Because we're a video game channel that is attracting people to watch us because of video games. Just like I firmly believe that advertisers should not be pulling out of YouTube because some of their ads appear on offensive stuff. Ultimately, you're not being associated with that anyways, right? Like say you pop up on a channel that's a Satanist channel. And you're ran by a Christian organization or whatever and that Christian, let's say it's Colgate, that's an example, and a Christian organization for some reason owns Colgate. And there's a Colgate commercial that appears on a Satanist video. Trust me, no one's associating that Satanist video with Colgate. I don't know. Like when I watch an NFL game, unless the commercial itself is tailored to football. Or says a sponsor of the NFL. Yeah, or is it clearly a thing playing off the fact that you're watching a football game? You know, when the Nintendo Switch commercial popped up in the middle of the Super Bowl, that was I like, oh man, Super Bowl and Nintendo Switch, they get together like, you know, three of them are on jelly. Like no, the Switch has nothing to do with the Super Bowl. It's just the ad spot that paces the bills at the company. Like it's not, and that's the thing. These advertisers pulling out, it's like, man, you just do not understand YouTube, do you? No, well, and another thought that just popped in my head, what's, you know, so all these game companies are doing this. Why aren't like PC companies coming after people who are making money off their PCs? What's the difference? There is no difference. People are using PCs to make money. You know, why aren't the PC makers going, well, where's my cut? Where's this? Where's that? Yeah, there's everybody but the person who makes the thing to get a cut. Yeah, right? Like how about the people that created it? Like I use Sony Vegas Pro, or I'm sorry, no. It's not Sony anymore, they sold it. I do own the company, Sony Vegas 13. I use Vegas 14, and I've also rented for like a couple months, the Adobe Premiere. Do those companies, because I'm doing all my editing in those videos, on their software, should they get a cut? Because I'm using their programs that are built to do exactly what I'm doing. How does Redbox survive? I mean, this microphone company, what is it? A Bask. Do they deserve a cut? Because I'm recording my audio with it. How about the people who made the cables and the stands? Right. That's what it's coming down to is, yes, there is a difference because the podcast isn't about this microphone. Well, right, but. At the same point, this microphone will be in there. I just said their name, that's advertising for them. I use these $30 Bask microphones. They're cheap as heck, but if you guys like the sound quality, guess what? You want to get into the podcast and here's a cheap way to do it. Yeah, definitely. And it's one of those things that I just, when people act like this person did on YouTube and like people have acted towards H&A history and the way this company's acting in this lawsuit, it's like you are devaluing the reason people are watching. On the video where the guy came at me about the footage and stuff, it was a video about, I believe it was about the Wii U failing and the switch succeeding. And in the background of that video, I have Puyo Puyo Tetris being played as the video portion of it. I didn't record myself. And here's the thing, there's not a single person that tuned into that video because Puyo Puyo Tetris is in the background. They tuned in because they wanted to know why I thought the Wii U failed and why I think the switch is succeeding. It's got like 6,000 views. It's got that because they wanted to know what I had to say about it. It had nothing to do with the game in the background. So then you might argue, well, what's the point of the game in the background? We're a video game channel. It adds entertainment value. And in this case, like people know, I'm really, really bad at Puyo Puyo. But whatever, I mean, that has some entertainment value in itself. Like, oh my God, I can't believe how bad you are at Puyo Puyo. By the way, bro, I agree with you about the Wii U. It's like, exactly. They're here for Wii U and the video portion is just adding some extra entertainment on top. And yes, there's other ways to cut videos. I've done videos where I got my camera and we do this podcast with green screen. But here's the thing. I shouldn't be limited in my creativity in that way by a company saying, sorry, because you put up a game that has really nothing to do with what you're talking about. We're going to take all your revenue from that video and completely ignoring that none of the content has anything to do with your game. Yeah. And that's kind of, this lawsuit, I'm hoping goes the right way. I'm hoping advertisers come back to YouTube and get their act together and understand that this is a very, very different platform than cable TV is. And there's a reason cable TV is dying in it. If these advertisers don't get on board with a place like YouTube, they're going to find out they're on the outside looking in for ads because there's going to be advertisers that eventually come along and say, look, you're dumb. Why would we ignore billions of people? Right, exactly. There are more people on YouTube than there are watching cable. So why would we ignore that audience? Just because some of them are Satanists and some of them are like, who cares? They're all consumers. Yep. Isn't the bottom line making money? Money, money? Yeah. I mean, isn't it the bottom line? Yeah. Like why should you care if you just bought your Colgate toothpaste if you were a Christian company? Who cares? That doesn't mean you support a Satanist. It means they're just a consumer. Right. It's not like you're going to go to Kmart or Walmart and be like, Sam, are you Satanist? You can't buy that. You need to go buy the competitors. Yeah, right. Like their money is just as liquid to you as anybody else. Yep. So that's what I find weird and I'm like, who cares? No one. I've not met one person that associates an ad on a video with the video itself. Now, obviously, you guys are going to take up examples. Like all of these people, there are people who have reacted like, oh, so you're associating with this company? It's like, no, you're just dumb. Those are the people you ignore. You don't listen to the vocal minority, OK? That's a mistake companies make sometimes. There's too much PCing going on and people listening to the vocal minority. Stop it. Are you making money? Yes. Was that Pepsi ad about join the conversation? Really, really terrible. Was it completely pointless and stupid? I saw nothing wrong with it. Yeah, it was completely stupid and completely pointless. And it made lots of mimis and jokes for Pepsi. You didn't think they give a shit? No. People are still buying their moat and do. They're still buying their Pepsi. It's not affecting their bottom line. It's just a joke for a week or two or so, apparently now. Yeah, right. It's just, everyone knows it's stupid. Pepsi probably knew it was stupid, but they knew it was stupid in a way that people were going to keep talking about it. Yeah. Like, who cares? Yeah. It's not like they came out and started bashing gay people or whatever. No. They released an ad that clearly does not understand the point of protesting. And that's OK. It doesn't matter. And no, Pepsi doesn't solve everything. You don't hand a Pepsi to a cop, and that solves everything. Yeah. Everyone, no one's that dumb. Oh, question, so many people. But whatever, people aren't that dumb. Like, there were some protest rallies that were throwing Pepsi cans at the cops. It's like, OK. I mean, come on now. Right. Free advertising. Right. Hey, why not? Any advertising is good advertising, right? Especially if your company's not directly at fault. The one's causing it. Yeah, exactly, yeah. So that's the thing. I think companies that eventually come back to YouTube once they realize that cable's kind of going down. You know, yeah. Obviously, you get high quality ads on things like Hulu. I don't think you're ever going to see ads on Netflix. I know a lot of companies that are probably knocking on Netflix's door every single day, and they're like, dude, can we get an ad spot? We'll pay you billions. And Netflix is like, we already make billions. Yeah, right? Yeah. We make billions because we're ad-free. We're not going to sell up. I hope we don't sell up. Right. If the company ever sells, then I assume selling up. The only way I think I'd be OK with it is if it was like one, maybe two ads at the beginning, and then you don't see anything. No. That's a Hulu of this. Right. You want that? Go to Hulu. Oh, yeah. Hulu's got original series and movies, and they have all these shows. Yeah, yeah, no, I know. But Hulu, by the way, is existing for all you TV companies worried about cable dying. Guess what? If you supported Hulu all these years, you're never part of the reason that cable TV is dying, because like me, I own cable, and I still watch most of my shows on Hulu, because I don't have time to watch them. And I could DVR them, or I could just turn on Hulu anywhere I want, where I don't have to be access to my DVR to watch. So again, if you were wondering why I even have cable in sports, maybe, live sports, live sports are still best on cable. Oh, yeah. Eventually, that might not be true. NFL has been streaming on Twitter. I know, really weird platform to stream on, right? But I think Twitch is getting into the action too now. The Playoff games, I believe I can stream all the NBA Playoff games online. At NCAA Tournament, you can stream that entire thing online for free. You don't even need a subscription anywhere. So let's get into a point where you can just stream everything. There's still streaming is not perfect. You stream a live show on there, but you watch it on your TV. You'll see it's like way behind your TV. But if internet speeds, like if Google Fiber actually makes it around the whole country in the United States, I think that's when cable companies are done. Right. Because it'll be instant then. There won't be any delays in your streams. Oh, for sure. And plus everyone will have whatever quality they want. They have a 720P TV grid. They have an 8K TV, no problem. Right. Exactly. You're going to go watch it in any quality you want. Anyways, getting kind of sidetracked with that conversation. But because it affects us too. In a very small way, because we're a small channel, it affects us. And obviously, as a creator, I always stand on the side that we should have our creator freedom to a point. There always should be some sort of limit. I don't know what the limit should be. But to a point, we should always have our creator freedom. And anyone who does reviews should have the ability to do those reviews and monetize those reviews. Because whenever a company tries to get involved in the monetization of reviews, it affects the review. Whether or not, there's people who think, you know, if Nintendo sends me a game, it's going to affect my review score. It never has, but it's understandable. Right. Because I got something for free. And that's always the thing. When I watch Linus Tech Tips, it's always a criticism of theirs. Well, of course, their review is favorable of all these products. They were sent them for review for free. And some of them they get to keep. So yeah, their reviews are going to be favorable. I think subconsciously, that's always true to a point. They talk a lot about Corsair products because they get a lot of Corsair products. I have a bunch of Corsair products. I'm apparently converted to Corsair with my PC stuff. But the thing is, in using their products, they're really damn good. It's understandable. My experience with those same products matches their experience. So it's like, you just get to know the kinds of creators you trust. If you want to think of Linus Tech, this is a shill, fine. You don't want to think, I'm a shill because I didn't even get a copy of Breath of the Wild. The last thing I got was a copy of Triforce Heroes like ADU. Yeah, right. I have not gotten a free copy of anything from Nintendo in a long time. The last thing was, man, well, Triforce Heroes that I gave to you because they didn't give it to me until the day of release. And I'm like, well, this is the time I already have the game. The last time I actually got a pre-release copy was probably, they didn't give me a previous copy of Twilight Princess AG. Maybe the Wind Waker HD, they might have given me an early copy. Even then, I don't think so. The last time I wrote it was honestly Skyward Sword. And Skyward Sword was in 2011. So six years later, and I don't really get early review copies anymore. That doesn't mean I don't want them, Nintendo, to get on that. I would love, I want to play NBA Playgrounds right now, but I can't afford it. Maybe I should contact the company behind NBA Playgrounds. Maybe they would give me a review copy. Maybe. I don't know if my following is big enough. I would love to get, if I could save money, I'm a gamer, right? I know gaming is expensive. So if I could save money, I would love to. It's not going to make me like the game anymore, but it's going to make me save money. And it'll make me feel less guilty that I buy a game I don't like. But I'm still going to review it negatively if I don't. Right. I mean, somebody can hand you a turd for free. You're not going to review it favorably. I mean, it's like, if you drop off a bag of burning crap on my front door, I'm going to have stuff to clean it up. And it's going to be a bad review. Yeah, right. Exactly. Of that burning mega book. But whatever. It's free. I'm curious, yeah. Yeah. I'm still going to throw it all at the rest of them. There used to be, when they sent physical copies of games, I got the physical copy of Epic Mickey 2 back in the day. I don't know how. I'm working as a Zeldin former, and I got Epic Mickey 2 review copy from Disney. I didn't understand why I got it, but it is what it is. They'll take it. It was bad. I sold it. And I feel no shame in saying I sold a free copy of a game. I got and made some money off it, because that's all that crappy it was. I don't even care. And yes, I shelled it off to GameStop. I don't care. I got like $10 for it. Who cares? The game sucks. Which Turgaron was probably immediately spent at GameStop. No, I think I got launched that day with that one. So I guess, if you want to get it a roundabout way, Disney bought lunch for me once. Yeah, right, exactly. There you go. You didn't make money off of it. It affected my review of Epic Mickey 2, because that Kikun food was so good. It's like, yeah, the food was good. The game was not. Sorry, it's not really a free game that made me think it was good, or think it was worth money. Which really upset me, because the first Epic Mickey was pretty good.