Creative Director at Typhoon Studios, AC3 & FC4: "streamers should be paying the developers and publishers of the games they stream"

[Green]

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.

Click to shrink...

I'm not. From my perspective that's what you're doing actually. You're ignoring most of what I'm saying and putting words in my mouth refuting an argument I wasn't making. Either that or I'm just not explaining my position well enough.

A. Dev makes Game
B. Streamer buys Game and streams it
C. Viewers buy Game (those that wouldn't have if streamer didn't stream it, ie: "not nothing") We both agree this is good and shouldn't change.

Where I take issue is this part:
D. Streamer Makes $100k Streaming Game, of that Streamer gives Dev $0 (ie: "nothing")

Saying D is fine because C is what I don't agree with.

 

[Ambient]

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

Click to shrink...

Or just frame it differently. He could have gotten out of this so easily. Makes me wonder how it is to work with the guy in person.

 

[Necromanti]

I bet he didn't expect that one of his tweets would get...9.2k replies, compared to the 1-5 he usually gets.

Makes me wonder how it is to work with the guy in person.

Click to shrink...

I don't trust the man who was the creative director for AC3 and lead designer on Spore, that's for sure.

 

[lupinko]

How about we just don't stream this dude's games then? Or buy or play them for that matter?

 

[Deleted member 4783]

Disgusting to see some here defending this BS.

 

[Keldroc]

I'm not. From my perspective that's what you're doing actually. You're ignoring most of what I'm saying and putting words in my mouth refuting an argument I wasn't making. Either that or I'm just not explaining my position well enough.

A. Dev makes Game
B. Streamer buys Game and streams it
C. Viewers buy Game (those that wouldn't have if streamer didn't stream it, ie: "not nothing") We both agree this is good and shouldn't change.

Where I take issue is this part:
D. Streamer Makes $100k Streaming Game, of that Streamer gives Dev $0 (ie: "nothing")

Saying D is fine because C is what I don't agree with.

Click to shrink...

The number of streamers to whom D applies is maybe in the high double digits, if that. Doesn't seem worth the negative PR of pursuing, considering the amounts the companies with the money to actually take legal action traffic in daily.

Also nobody should be shocked that a guy hawking Stadia is out here spouting anti-consumer horse shit.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

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.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much what I said and have been saying the whole thread. Whatever the law would be if this was litigated is not worth more than everything they lose in the process. Again, who the fuck is going to buy licenses to play games? How much exposure do you lose by no one playing or streaming games besides big streamers? If EA did this Ubi and everyone else would be the first to say our games will not charge licenses and soak up all the free advertising lol

 

[Fugu]

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.

Click to shrink...

This is a very broad generalization, but different things are treated identically by laws generally because they have salient points in common and their differences do not justify differential treatment. I am arguing that at the bare minimum the differences between videogames and non-interactive media cannot be dismissed out-of-hand because they are large and go directly to issues that often matter in (intellectual) property disputes. When you are trying to justify treating two different things the same under the law, it is not sufficient to list the similarities; rather, what needs to be done is to account for the differences and explain why those differences shouldn't amount to different treatment. In this thread, I'm seeing a lot of "movies are treated this way so games should be too" and not enough of "the interactive component of games wouldn't change their treatment under a given set of laws because of x". Granted, I think that is at least partially because the latter argument is much more difficult to make, but it's actually the only argument that matters here.

I'm not going to comment on whether publishers could do something because I am the farthest thing from an IP lawyer. Hell, I don't deal with private law at all.

I mean it's all in the EULA no one ever reads.

Click to shrink...

This is really not relevant but contract enforcement comes down to far more than whether you agreed to something or not, so the fact that it's in the EULA is close to meaningless without further context.

 

[Axel Stone]

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.

Click to shrink...

I have said repeatedly that criticising his opinion is completely valid.

Clearly where we're at odds here is your second paragraph. You don't care about the strength of the reaction as it's the internet.I do, this is was what was bothering me. This is precisely what my original post was about. Not criticising an opinion.

I hope we understand each other now and can put this to bed.

 

[Chettlar]

I'm not. From my perspective that's what you're doing actually. You're ignoring most of what I'm saying and putting words in my mouth refuting an argument I wasn't making. Either that or I'm just not explaining my position well enough.

A. Dev makes Game
B. Streamer buys Game and streams it
C. Viewers buy Game (those that wouldn't have if streamer didn't stream it, ie: "not nothing") We both agree this is good and shouldn't change.

Where I take issue is this part:
D. Streamer Makes $100k Streaming Game, of that Streamer gives Dev $0 (ie: "nothing")

Saying D is fine because C is what I don't agree with.

Click to shrink...

Again, this is narrowminded. You are replacing "nothing" with "$0" but you are wrong here.

Because, that $100K might have very well been something the Dev SPENT. That's an opportunity savings. You can't ignore that as a business, and no business does.

You are ignoring the fact that now the dev can now spend LESS because now this advertising exists, and the streamer is being compensated by another party, while the dev gets the value of the advertising they otherwise would have had to spend money on.

You can't just ignore the fact that the developer is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth in advertising value that they no longer have to spend.

You keep leaving that out of your scenario. You can't do that and not be disingenuous.

Advertising is incredibly valuable, controlled or not. You can't ignore the value the streamer provides.

So no, it is innaccurate to say the dev gets $0. Because what they are doing absolutely offsets advertising costs.

THIS IS BORNE OUT IN REAL LIFE. It's borne out so much that publishers will LITERALLY PAY FOR IT because it is so valuable. If streaming wasn't a viable market awareness strategy, then why the fuck are companies paying millions of dollars for it.

Again, you keep ignoring that a literal telltale developer said this, and those are some of the most story-focused games around, with the least amount changing between playing and watching. And even then they said streamers are invaluable.

Quit ignoring that. It is dishonest to say the streamer gives the Dev $0. Sure, if you focus just on one tiny portion of the picture, and ignore other costs, which businesses absolutely do. They don't give them dollars, but they do give them what dollars could provide, for FREE.

As a business making revenue off of a product, you can't, and no one does just consider dollars earned. You also consider opportunity costs and spendings saved.

To act as if the the streamer gets off without contributing anything to the developer is dishonest. Saying they don't give dollar bills to them doesn't change the fact that they are providing them real value, that literally can have a dollar amount assigned to it by economists. You can't just leave that out of the picture.

You are the one leaving shit out, not me. You are trying to narrow the conversation here.

Everyone knows the streamer doesn't pay. That's not a point...that's...the thing being discussed.

I have said repeatedly that criticising his opinion is completely valid.

Clearly where we're at odds here is your second paragraph. You don't care about the strength of the reaction as it's the internet.I do, this is was what was bothering me. This is precisely what my original post was about. Not criticising an opinion.

I hope we understand each other now and can put this to bed.

Click to shrink...

No, I do care. I don't care inasmuch as to the point of what he is getting criticized for.

 

[Green]

The number of streamers to whom D applies is maybe in the high double digits, if that. Doesn't seem worth the negative PR of pursuing, considering the amounts the companies with the money to actually take legal action traffic in daily.

Also nobody should be shocked that a guy hawking Stadia is out here spouting anti-consumer horse shit.

Click to shrink...

Right. No doubt.

But "not being worth negative PR" doesn't nullify the ownership rights of artists and creators.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I'm not. From my perspective that's what you're doing actually. You're ignoring most of what I'm saying and putting words in my mouth refuting an argument I wasn't making. Either that or I'm just not explaining my position well enough.

A. Dev makes Game
B. Streamer buys Game and streams it
C. Viewers buy Game (those that wouldn't have if streamer didn't stream it, ie: "not nothing") We both agree this is good and shouldn't change.

Where I take issue is this part:
D. Streamer Makes $100k Streaming Game, of that Streamer gives Dev $0 (ie: "nothing")

Saying D is fine because C is what I don't agree with.

Click to shrink...

How much should the Publisher get?

Right. No doubt.

But "not being worth negative PR" doesn't nullify the ownership rights of artists and creators.

Click to shrink...

It isn't the negative PR that stops them from doing it. It is because there is no money in it.

 

[Lowrys]

This is a very broad generalization, but different things are treated identically by laws generally because they have salient points in common and their differences do not justify differential treatment. I am arguing that at the bare minimum the differences between videogames and non-interactive media cannot be dismissed out-of-hand because they are large and go directly to issues that often matter in (intellectual) property disputes. When you are trying to justify treating two different things the same under the law, it is not sufficient to list the similarities; rather, what needs to be done is to account for the differences and explain why those differences shouldn't amount to different treatment. In this thread, I'm seeing a lot of "movies are treated this way so games should be too" and not enough of "the interactive component of games wouldn't change their treatment under a given set of laws because of x". Granted, I think that is at least partially because the latter argument is much more difficult to make, but it's actually the only argument that matters here.

I'm not going to comment on whether publishers could do something because I am the farthest thing from an IP lawyer. Hell, I don't deal with private law at all.

Click to shrink...

Fair enough, thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

[Deception]

*laughs in Among Us*

 

[Chettlar]

Right. No doubt.

But "not being worth negative PR" doesn't nullify the ownership rights of artists and creators.

Click to shrink...

PR is not the only reason they don't do it.

They make more by allowing it to happen.

 

[mikehaggar]

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.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this is kind of how I see it. I haven't formed a personal/moral opinion about streaming, but I definitely think publishers have a legal argument to make if they want to go down that road.

 

[AustinJ]

I think I understand his point. It's not about buying the game at retail, he thinks streamers should have to pay for a license to broadcast the game to a large audience.

He's coming at it sort of how movie studios would. You can buy the blu ray for your own enjoyment, but they'll come after you if you post that movie online or even just show it live to a large crowd. There are exorbitant licensing fees for broadcasting, which streamers do not have to pay.

Not sure I agree with his stance, but it's an interesting take. It definitely doesn't take into account what many others here have mentioned - streamers seem to be good for game sales.

 

[SasaBassa]

Shoutouts to the clear actual lawyers/law-adjacent folks in this thread, fun read despite some noise and certainly makes for some considerations I hadn't thought of.

 

[Teeth]

Again, this is narrowminded. You are replacing "nothing" with "$0" but you are wrong here.

Because, that $100K might have very well been something the Dev SPENT. That's an opportunity savings. You can't ignore that as a business, and no business does.

You are ignoring the fact that now the dev can now spend LESS because now this advertising exists, and the streamer is being compensated by another party, while the dev gets the value of the advertising they otherwise would have had to spend money on.

You can't just ignore the fact that the developer is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth in advertising value that they no longer have to spend.

You keep leaving that out of your scenario. You can't do that and not be disingenuous.

Advertising is incredibly valuable, controlled or not. You can't ignore the value the streamer provides.

So no, it is innaccurate to say the dev gets $0. Because what they are doing absolutely offsets advertising costs.

THIS IS BORNE OUT IN REAL LIFE. It's borne out so much that publishers will LITERALLY PAY FOR IT because it is so valuable. If streaming wasn't a viable market awareness strategy, then why the fuck are companies paying millions of dollars for it.

Again, you keep ignoring that a literal telltale developer said this, and those are some of the most story-focused games around, with the least amount changing between playing and watching. And even then they said streamers are invaluable.

Quit ignoring that. It is dishonest to say the streamer gives the Dev $0. Sure, if you focus just on one tiny portion of the picture, and ignore other costs, which businesses absolutely do. They don't give them dollars, but they do give them what dollars could provide, for FREE.

As a business making revenue off of a product, you can't, and no one does just consider dollars earned. You also consider opportunity costs and spendings saved.

To act as if the the streamer gets off without contributing anything to the developer is dishonest. Saying they don't give dollar bills to them doesn't change the fact that they are providing them real value, that literally can have a dollar amount assigned to it by economists. You can't just leave that out of the picture.

You are the one leaving shit out, not me. You are trying to narrow the conversation here.

Everyone knows the streamer doesn't pay. That's not a point...that's...the thing being discussed.



No, I do care. I don't care inasmuch as to the point of what he is getting criticized for.

Click to shrink...

This is a nearly exact argument for "creating art for exposure".

The creator gets free advertising - a platform for their work with wider exposure than they would have otherwise.
The recipient of the monetary funds of the creator gets explicit financial gain.

In a lot of cases, an artist was only discovered because they had their work given out for free. This has been the big break for a lot of artists. Therefore it is good and everyone should be okay with exposure work.

 

[Ricker]

How does this make sense...I mean the bigger Streamers get codes from Devs to play their games and I know a few smaller streamers that ''play" 8 hours a day,if not more to try and make or help make a living out of Twitch,which takes an amount as well,not everyone streams only for fun ;P

 

[Chettlar]

This is a nearly exact argument for "creating art for exposure".

The creator gets free advertising - a platform for their work with wider exposure than they would have otherwise.
The recipient of the monetary funds of the creator gets explicit financial gain.

In a lot of cases, an artist was only discovered because they had their work given out for free. This has been the big break for a lot of artists. Therefore it is good and everyone should be okay with exposure work.

Click to shrink...

No it isn't. Because typically creating art for exposure means the artist does not get compensated or gain actual value from that exposure.

You can't just talk about "Exposure" without talking about the real millions of dollars it is actually worth. Exposure CAN be worth something. It just depends on the situation. You can't ignore that.

In the case of video games, streaming actively brings revenue to developers. This is different from an art twitter account just reposting art from someone else and getting money for it that doesn't go to the artist.

If exposure was worthless, companies wouldn't spend as much developing a product as advertising it. Market mindshare is absolutely valuable. And streaming has been proven repeatedly to be valuable.

Again, look at how developers the industry over actively encourage it. They wouldn't be doing that it if it was detrimental to them. No, they do it because it is beneficial. Hell companies design their games with streaming in mind nowadays because they know how valuable it is.

 

[VinceK]

When it comes to games being streamed and just what they cause to happen I will share how things have gone with me. I am pretty much a console exclusive gamer I very VERY rarely play anything on PC. Due to seeing streams of Among Us, Phasmopobia and Pathfinder Kingmaker I have ended up playing and also buying games on PC now, just Among Us and Phasmopobia alone have caused me to spend more time gaming on PC then I have in years.

 

[Scottoest]

Honestly, I sorta get what he's saying, even if I think it's a lot more complicated than he makes it out to be (for one, lots of streamers aren't doing it as a business).

If WB create a movie and release it on Bluray, you can't then take that copy you bought and legally start hosting showings in town, under cover of "well maybe some of the people who saw it went on to buy it themselves" (this is basically a variation of the @for_exposure.txt argument people make about piracy sometimes). You legally have to pay WB to get a license for that showing.

Some streamers make millions of dollars, while using the creative works of these studios as a central facet of their presentation. And unlike movies in the park, or music in a bar, the studio/publisher is getting nothing out of that arrangement despite their content creating value for that streamer.

And make no mistake, I strongly suspect the publishers of these games would have an incredibly strong legal argument to this effect, if they ever choose to exercise it. Right now they don't - maybe because they don't want the PR fallout (See: Nintendo), maybe because they still see it as a net benefit internally, etc.

My personal feelings are less cut and dried than this dev's, but I completely see where he's coming from, and he's not being ridiculous.

 

[Einchy]

Click to shrink...

POGGERS

 

[Avitus]

Some streamers make millions of dollars, while using the creative works of these studios as a central facet of their presentation. And unlike movies in the park, or music in a bar, the studio/publisher is getting nothing out of that arrangement despite their content creating value for that streamer.

Click to shrink...

Except all the millions of titles sold due to streaming exposure.

 

[EggmaniMN]

I don't know why people here are even trying to play devil's advocate and stretch his argument to fit stuff. He's getting ratio'd for saying something incredibly dumb and he has a history of being shitty. You don't have to help him.

Here's a hint: the vast majority of people streaming never make a dime from it. His argument presupposes that people do with no separation between partners and whoever. It's a terrible argument right off the bat, at every level.

 

[Teeth]

No it isn't. Because typically creating art for exposure means the artist does not get compensated or gain actual value from that exposure.

You can't just talk about "Exposure" without talking about the real millions of dollars it is actually worth. Exposure CAN be worth something. It just depends on the situation. You can't ignore that.

In the case of video games, streaming actively brings revenue to developers. This is different from an art twitter account just reposting art from someone else and getting money for it that doesn't go to the artist.

Click to shrink...

Streaming actively has the potential to generate sales for the pub. It could, theoretically prevent sales.

In exposure work (which is not the same as posting work on a message board or photo collection) the artist even gets to PICK whether they want to and who they work for. In streaming, the pub has no such luxury (though they can pay to have someone play their stuff, if the streamer chooses to take that deal).

The pubs have no control (at this point, though they could and that's what this is all about).

Saying that Ninja is good advertising for Apex Legends but "exposure work" for no-name website #22 is not good advertising is a no shit, sherlock situation. There are definitely large scale operations that crowbar cheap deals because of how great the exposure is - and those artists take it (including spec work) expressly because it's good advertising.

Doesn't make it ethical.

 

[Sarobi]

Publishers don't want to deal with the drama that comes with influencers and the real life people who devote their time to them. It's easier to just have them say nice things about their game, and convince the kids to buy future dlc.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

I think I understand his point. It's not about buying the game at retail, he thinks streamers should have to pay for a license to broadcast the game to a large audience.

He's coming at it sort of how movie studios would. You can buy the blu ray for your own enjoyment, but they'll come after you if you post that movie online or even just show it live to a large crowd. There are exorbitant licensing fees for broadcasting, which streamers do not have to pay.

Not sure I agree with his stance, but it's an interesting take. It definitely doesn't take into account what many others here have mentioned - streamers seem to be good for game sales.

Click to shrink...

That's an entirely different medium though, he makes no argument for why it should apply to games as it does to film. It's not interesting at all, it's an extremely basic take.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

Streaming actively has the potential to generate sales for the pub. It could, theoretically prevent sales.

In exposure work (which is not the same as posting work on a message board or photo collection) the artist even gets to PICK whether they want to and who they work for. In streaming, the pub has no such luxury (though they can pay to have someone play their stuff, if the streamer chooses to take that deal).

The pubs have no control (at this point, though they could and that's what this is all about).

Saying that Ninja is good advertising for Apex Legends but "exposure work" for no-name website #22 is not good advertising is a no shit, sherlock situation. There are definitely large scale operations that crowbar cheap deals because of how great the exposure is - and those artists take it (including spec work) expressly because it's good advertising.

Doesn't make it ethical.

Click to shrink...

There is nothing unethical about what Ninja does because publishers literally pay the guy to play a game for them as a form of advertising. This "labor for exposure" argument is absurd on its face, they are two entirely separate issues.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

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.

Click to shrink...

I guess it must be supreme arrogance because I fail to see how I don't have even a basic understanding of the things I'm talking about, and I certainly haven't suggested that I don't respect the complexity of entire situation. An earlier point you made about your right to do something is king unless someone challenges it is precisely the point I'm making about why companies like Nintendo can continue to make claims on content.

 

[Ether]

It's an interesting argument, and one that warrants further exploration.

I do think some type of licensing model would be a great way to fix the toxicity of some streamers, and also bring a little more reciprocity to the streamer/publisher relationship. It's disingenuous to suggest the publisher gets a fair shake because of "free advertising," I need the analytics that definitively tell that story.

Streamers in that Ninja and Pokemane stratosphere no longer do it for the love, they're literally cashing in to the tune of millions of dollars. It's not equitable to pay $60 for a product and then use said product as the backdrop to make your own content without splitting any piece of the enormous revenue pie.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

How much money do people think publishers stand to make on licensing the use of games for streaming?

Like all this "I get $0" bullshit. Forget the million dollar making streamers (many of whom pull in through donations outside Twitch), what is a reasonable licensing fee to be able to stream a game? $5 per game? $10 per game? $10 for 10 hours of streaming? The average streamer does not make money off of Twitch or any other streaming service. You are not going to pull in any significant revenue introducing licensing.

What you are more likely to see is streaming services clamp down on out of website donations and then portions of Twitch's streaming revenue given to publishers.

 

[MadLaughter]

Lmao

 

[jsnepo]

That's an entirely different medium though, he makes no argument for why it should apply to games as it does to film. It's not interesting at all, it's an extremely basic take.

Click to shrink...

Why should games be different?

 

[Sidebuster]

Has anybody brought up the question; world games like PUBG, Fortnite and the "genre" of social games, resurgence of games like skate, phenomenons like fall guys and among us exist in the world the stadia guy wants?

 

[Fugu]

People invoking other media as justification for how copyright should (note: not would) work in the context of videogames really ought to address first why they think it's a good idea to emulate a model that enriches the industry's biggest players at the expense of virtually everything else, including the health of the very industry the laws purport to protect.

Copyright laws aren't working for musicians or filmmakers or authors. They're working for the small minority of publishers whose very existence is predicated on the laws favorable to them.

 

[Gwynbleidd]

Lmao

Click to shrink...

Alex is the best

 

[Necromanti]

Here's a hint: the vast majority of people streaming never make a dime from it. His argument presupposes that people do with no separation between partners and whoever. It's a terrible argument right off the bat, at every level.

Click to shrink...

That's what I don't get. The kind of streamer that I've seen some people say should pay publishers (due to the amount of revenue they generate) are also the ones making marketing deals, getting free game codes, and having skins made bearing their image/brand for sale as microtransactions in those very games. It would only disproportionately affect and punish smaller streamers.

 

[Twister]

I think it's pretty telling that this guy not only worked on the worst Assassin's Creed and the worst Far Cry, but that he also worked on Stadia. Plus this horrible take. He must have some kind of curse put on him or something

 

[AustinJ]

That's an entirely different medium though, he makes no argument for why it should apply to games as it does to film. It's not interesting at all, it's an extremely basic take.

Click to shrink...

I don't know, I see validity in the point for gaming, especially games where the whole hook is the story.

Despite what you say, I do find it interesting. Sorry.

 

[AntiMacro]

I'm honestly very amused by how Era believes licensing works.

Unless the license explicitly states its non-revokable, they can revoke the license to play the music in the background and DMCA it. And they wouldn't lose the case.

Click to shrink...

I still don't know that they'd be able to DMCA in that instance. They provided a license to use it in the stream - taking it back afterwards would mean the person couldn't use it going forward, but doesn't retroactively revoke it.

 

[abellwillring]

But isn't that what you're doing by buying the game???

Click to shrink...

That's an individual license vs a commercial use license. As a comparison, if you buy a pay-per-view event or even just pay for cable, you can't then stream the thing you're watching for others in general let alone make money off it.

Noticed a typo.

 

[Scottoest]

Except all the millions of titles sold due to streaming exposure.

Click to shrink...

Yes, I literally covered the "for exposure!" argument in my post.

 

[jdmc13]

Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I am TOTALLY here for this twitter drama.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

I guess it must be supreme arrogance because I fail to see how I don't have even a basic understanding of the things I'm talking about, and I certainly haven't suggested that I don't respect the complexity of entire situation. An earlier point you made about your right to do something is king unless someone challenges it is precisely the point I'm making about why companies like Nintendo can continue to make claims on content.

Click to shrink...

But no one is saying Nintendo can't make claims, just that Nintendo making the claim does not mean the claim is automatically legitimate. DMCA abuse is incredibly common, false claims are made all the time.

 

[CloudsFromSpace]

I'm not familiar with this area, but is there case law on point vis a vis the questions of reproduction, distribution, and possible derivative works elements of game streaming?

 

[Kthulhu]

Some streamers make millions of dollars, while using the creative works of these studios as a central facet of their presentation. And unlike movies in the park, or music in a bar, the studio/publisher is getting nothing out of that arrangement despite their content creating value for that streamer.

Click to shrink...

I don't really see why this is an issue. Games aren't the same as movies are music.

Watching a reuploaded movie on twitch is fundementally the same experience as watching it on Netflix, but the same can't be said for video games.

Like, should Hasbro get a cut if I stream me and my friends playing a game of Monopoly? If the answer to that is no (and it almost certainly would be no if taken to court), then why should I pay 2K for a stream of me and my friends playing Civ 6?

 

[Deleted member 11413]

I don't know, I see validity in the point for gaming, especially games where the whole hook is the story.

Despite what you say, I do find it interesting. Sorry.

Click to shrink...

You can see validity in it if you want, but he doesn't make an argument for it at all he just asserts it without providing any basis for why it should be the way he says. "Games where the hook is the story" is incredibly arbitrary and subjective.

 

[Teeth]

There is nothing unethical about what Ninja does because publishers literally pay the guy to play a game for them as a form of advertising. This "labor for exposure" argument is absurd on its face, they are two entirely separate issues.

Click to shrink...

Go on...