I never said it was. I've consistently said in this thread that they can choose to enforce if they want.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Creative Director at Typhoon Studios, AC3 & FC4: "streamers should be paying the developers and publishers of the games they stream"
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
- Status
I'm thinking the lines have been blurred that we can't easily see how obvious or not obvious which take is the correct take.
I honestly wonder what it is that people think lawyers do for a living when I see shit like this.
That would put it in a situation like MST3K and Rifftrax though. There are very very few people interested in watching say "Starcrash" unless it was on MST3K and yet they are unable to just post a riff of whatever film without worry of copyright. Which is why there's now the market for selling the audio for a Rifftrax seperated from the recording riff over the movie.
I mean sure, if you want to argue that the use of "should" in a tweet with no other efforts to make something a reality despite having power to do so is a sign of an attempt to change the status quo, then you go ahead. I feel it's too strong a reading of a tweet, but this is getting into semantics and it's late in the U.K. and I can't be bothered with it right now.
And frankly, even if you're right, I still believe that the reaction from some quarters to an opinion being expressed has been over the top. Actual efforts to effect change are one thing, expressing an opinion that things ought to be different doesn't strike me as grounds for this sort of reaction. Clearly you disagree, I'm not sure there's much more to discuss here.
Hold on, if you stream a movie in its entirety on YouTube or whatever, and talking over it with your critique or whatever, the studio or publisher would have a perfectly legitimate claim to stop you doing that, especially if you were monetising that stream. It's an IP matter.
Why is it different for games?
Put to one side streamers who are paid to promote the game by streaming, or the fact that streaming often benefits a game's sales, because those are both irrelevent.
Why is it different for games?
Put to one side streamers who are paid to promote the game by streaming, or the fact that streaming often benefits a game's sales, because those are both irrelevent.
With the exception of maybe Sam Bartlow games, the gameplay and experience cannot be replicated through a streamed experience. Streamers can help sell a game to a wider audience, see Fortnite, Fall Guys, Among Us, hell Minecraft and Halo back in the Youtube/Machinima early days. The only extent it can be harmful is if the game is disliked, but the "boogeyman attacking our otherwise great scapegoat" has also been applied to Critics, Rotten Tomatoes, internet forums and fan conventions. It's ridiculous.
Look, I don't even watch streamers except to play Jackbox with friends. My childhood friend made me spend 4 hours watching him play PC games I could never try when growing up which put me off the whole "watching people play games thing". But even I know their value.
Look, I don't even watch streamers except to play Jackbox with friends. My childhood friend made me spend 4 hours watching him play PC games I could never try when growing up which put me off the whole "watching people play games thing". But even I know their value.
Pretend for a moment you are not talking about "IP".
Are games and movies different?
I mean I've now said it three times: the "nothing" I was referring to was specifically the profit generated by the streamer using content they didn't create without permission and without paying for it. OBVIOUSLY there are side-benefits to a developer that a streamer provides that typically creates an overall net-positive for a particular dev. I'm not talking about that because if they don't have permission, whatever "benefits" come along with their streams doesn't matter - they don't have the right because it isn't theirs to use to make money. It's the money they are making and NOT paying to the creators. If you just keep ignoring that to make some run-on reiteration again, then I don't know what else to say.
If Metallica just started playing some indie bands albums in full and profiting off it without kicking anything back to the creator, you can't just say that's fair because now the creator benefits from Metallica's massive exposure and people will be more likely to buy the media. It's not their damn music to make money off of.
Fuck the creators I guess? Streamers should just do whatever they want with whatever they want and creators should just be thankful whatever comes their way from the almighty Twitchers.
I mean, video game companies COULD do this now. They could absolutely say "you cannot stream our games unless you pay us for the privilege. You and SuperDouche are acting like it's somehow impossible. There's a reason the companies aren't doing that.
But as a lawyer the intellectual property is a fundamental part of the issue. You can't just put it to one side.
My bad - it was unclear. I'm agreeing with you. All this sort of armchair analysis makes me think that folks on here must just think being a lawyer is incredibly easy.
I'm asking you to put it aside for a moment so that you can ideally realize that these things are being treated as different because they are different.
I'm not saying I agree with it, it's just that bird law in this country is not governed by reason.
More seriously, definitely a sector I'll be watching re IP law developments because of the push/pull between enforcement and profits which isn't so present right now but could change.
More seriously, definitely a sector I'll be watching re IP law developments because of the push/pull between enforcement and profits which isn't so present right now but could change.
Use limewire just to be safe and to get Typhoid for your computer at the same time.
This is the big message. If the money starts to move to one side, then the law might shift very aggressively, but it's complicated/confusing right now.
Oh, I didn't know that. I thought that it was unclear under current law and no one felt like being the company to have to litigate it.
It is.
Companies could do what they suggested because nobody could afford to challenge it. Only if Amazon or Google decided to throw their hat in the ring would it ever get anywhere.
People using sources to argue their points =! thinking being a lawyer is easy.
Yall wild.
Are movies and games literally different things? Yes. But as far as I'm aware, IP law and what one can and cannot republish (or broadcast) doesn't have one rule for movies and one rule for games, at least in my country.
I'm not saying publishers should always charge streamers for the right to broadcast their IP, I'm just interested in the legal argument to say they cannot do that if they wish.
I want them to try it and see how it works out.
Flappy Bird
Among Us
Phasmophobia
Medival Dynasty
They all demonstrated that a couple of streamers can change some people's life.
Music industry is fucking themself with DMCA, if nobody plays your music anymore, nobody will know about it either. I add a lot of tracks I hear during streams that I like to my Apple Music playlist and I'm sure others do the same.
The argument against exposure doesn't apply here, either. The work is already done and you need to sell copies of it. If it's digital, there is virtually no additional cost. It would be different if you had to bake a cake for every customer, which isn't the case here.
Flappy Bird
Among Us
Phasmophobia
Medival Dynasty
They all demonstrated that a couple of streamers can change some people's life.
Music industry is fucking themself with DMCA, if nobody plays your music anymore, nobody will know about it either. I add a lot of tracks I hear during streams that I like to my Apple Music playlist and I'm sure others do the same.
The argument against exposure doesn't apply here, either. The work is already done and you need to sell copies of it. If it's digital, there is virtually no additional cost. It would be different if you had to bake a cake for every customer, which isn't the case here.
Lawyer here, everything is legal if you don't get caught. Go for it
no one uses kazaa any more. get yourself kazaa lite. its much safer.
Thank you, however i use PeerGuardian meaning i cannot get viruses on my PC.
Games and movies aren't inherently different. They are media I am consuming. Games are more interactive than movies sure but that doesn't make the basis of what a movie is and a basis of what game is all that different.
Copyright holders, yes when flagged to do so by Content ID. In the case of video games that usually means publishers.
I don't take sides in debates about quantum mechanics because I recognize that I'm out of my depth. Hell, I don't take sides in this debate because I recognize that I'm not even the right kind of lawyer. And yet, here you are talking about what "the law is" when you've exhibited that you don't even have a basic understanding of what that means. That's really incredible to me and I can only imagine it comes from a place of supreme arrogance and/or a lack of respect for the complexity of the questions involved.
Why would the law treat things that are different as identical? Better question - why should the law treat things that are different as identical?
Totally a lawyer here for sure, it's ok because the super mario rom has to tell you if it is a cop.
yeah, it's very cut and dry. Even the game you are "buying" you don't own. You are buying a license to play the game. You aren't buying the game itself. Your license only gives you the right to play the game privately. Very much the same way when you buy a movie you are buying a license to view the movie privately. In both cases, you have no legal right to publicly display the game, or profit off it without the consent of the publisher.
Game publishers have so far chosen not to enforce their rights. However, they could at any point choose otherwise.
Dude. You can be criticized for an opinion, even if it's not a direct call to action. I don't know why you keep bringing this up. He thinks things should be different, and people think that's a bad take. There's nothing more to it than that. It's not a weird thing to note that people are doing that. And the way you described it wasn't accurate.
Whether I think the degree to which reactions have gone doesn't really matter to me here. It's the internet. There's probably some dumb fuck who has sent Alex a death threat. That doesn't invalidate the criticism he's getting, nor does it change that the reason he's getting criticized is for a bad take.
What you're not getting is you can't just say nothing here. You can't just lop out a huge portion of the picture here, which is what you are doing.
And again, the music comparisons don't work, because with streaming, universally they do lead to increased sales vs no streaming. But with music, the opposite is more often true.
You are right, I overstepped with that description. Sufficiently transformative for a book might instead be something like a review, or an analysis of the book. Even if the whole plot is revealed, it would not be illegal. Similarly for games, despite the fact that most of the game's content might appear on screen at some point, it is undeniably fundamentally different to watch it than to play it.
They can claim what they want, doesn't mean that what they claim is legal.
One indication that something is not "cut and dry" is that the claimed "cut and dry thing" never happens.
I guess I basically would grant that I am possibly open to the idea a game owner should be able to license a game in this way if they really wanted to. More likely than not this just would allow rent seeking by AAA hit rights holders and no revenue at all for anyone else. Most owners, even AAA, will probably prefer free marketing though.
Its dumb. This issue isn't complex. And it will eventually get litigated if there is actual merit to any of these claims because no one will leave money on the table. But reality of the matter no one is gonna fucking waste their money buying licenses to stream games so no one is going to actually make any money out of this shit if you target streamers as individual participants. So publishers have to target streaming platforms like Youtube and Twitch and that shit will eventually happen regardless because no one with a legal claim to a multi billion dollar industry will sit on their hands forever.
The law always lags behind technology, so often with tech you're trying to apply law to situations that weren't envisaged when the laws were created.
You seem to be a fellow lawyer, so you know that asking why different things would be treated as identical isn't quite the right question. But OK.
Videogames are interactive, that's the only difference I could see a court distinguishing the two media. Both have sound and visuals. Both are covered by intellectual property rights that can be enforced if they're infringed.
As to the "should" question, that is more interesting but again you will know that the law often consists of broader frameworks that are then applied to specific situations, because creating different rules for everything would be impracticable and unsustainable.
Personally I think the two media are sufficiently similar that publishers could credibly stop streamers from broadcasting their games if they so chose.
[Citation needed]
I really wish people would stop adopting the pragmatic legal positions of corporations just because they use authoritative language when speaking those positions.
This isn't a new topic. This has been discussed by most publishers (internally) and devs at some point or another. All have decided it's not worth it because the marketing they get from game streams is more valuable than the license fees they would receive and the litigation costs they would incur going after anyone who infringes on those rights.
Even then, it's pretty easy to backtrack once you see your mistake.
I predict he'll make his account private in less than 4 hours lol
- Status