They are not sending a copy of the game, as has been stated many many many times already in this thread, they are sending you a video stream. Unless you are arguing that every time you watch a stream on twitch you need to buy a copy of the game you are watching?
Every game on Twitch is only being streamed with the permission of the developer. Devs have the right to insist nobody streams their game. That's is a categorical fact. Nintendo used to insist they got a cut of any streaming or YouTube revenue of their games, and only stopped because it meant in practice nobody streamed their games.
I am not sure GFN is copying, reproducing or broadcasting a copy of a game.
Also in your example people didn't buy a license. I think renting cloud pc hardware for personal use is something that would and should be judged by different standards.
If GFN didn't broadcast the game, you wouldn't be able to see it or interact with it. They obviously are. They are broadcasting it to you.
Different laws apply to different things. There a ton of laws that apply specifically to broadcasting television. When it comes to software, I don't think we know what would happen if this went to court. There could be major implications for businesses that have nothing to do with video games.
No. What GFN is doing constitutes a public performance. You as a member of the public can sign up, and you ask GFN to perform a copyrighted work for you at your request. They need a license to do that. It all comes down to copyright. You are allowed to record OTA TV signals in the USA. It's considered a form of fair use. Aereo figured that if they just leased the hardware to you and only performed actions under customer direction, they wouldn't need a license. The courts soundly rejected that argument and decided that what Aereo was doing was a public performance. In this case, GFN is no different.
Aereo had the right to receive and store OTA TV signals for their own private use. So does anyone else in the USA. Nobody has the right to transmit them to other people though. Just because you have the private right to make use of a copyrighted work doesn't mean you have the right to direct anyone else to perform it for you.
Also, when I posted last night I was tired and didn't even read the Verge article fully. When I read it today, I was surprised to find even they reference the Aereo case. It's such an obvious comparison because they are basically doing very similar things.
You might not remember this, but back in the early 2000's there were lots of companies trying to make it big by basically ignoring copyright and hoping they could strike deals when the money started coming in. You had filesharing applications that claimed they never actually touched copyrighted work, and you had music storage lockers that claimed they were just a backup store. All of them got sued by the MPAA/RIAA. Everyone eventually agreed license terms.
Actually, there is no copy of the game made. The files and code are still on the hardware in the server center.
The only thing that gets transferred is the output that is displayed on your PC. No copy of the game is being made so there would be no copyright infringement perse. The work stays where it is and you can play with the output by inputting commands which is the intended way of interacting with the work.
That's why it's also different to TV and cannot be compared.
GFN has to copy the game to their servers to run it on their servers. They need to then copy the output of the game across the internet to you. That is a public performance.
Your also redistributing when you play your games on another PC or console whether via streaming or otherwise. Are you going to happily allow these companies to take your rights and charge you for that gracious service. Wonder what happens when a hardware you own breaks down.
That is actually the reason why some publishers claim they can restrict your ability to copy games you've bought across multiple systems. It's because copyright gives them the monopoly on those rights. In jurisdictions where personal copying is allowed, it's because there are certain exceptions such as fair use.
I think the problem is that copyright was developed when copying required massive printing presses. A lot of the ideas underpinning it don't make any sense in a world where we all carry devices capable of making endless copies of everything, and where copying is a prerequisite for even seeing copyrighted work on our devices. Most of the reforms that have taken place for copyright have largely been to protect the interests of rightsholders. There are some good things - like the DMCA safe harbour - but for the most part rightsholders actually have massive discretion when it comes to controlling how their work is reproduced and performed.
I think that's wrong, but that is how it is.
