You can't conflate exploitation of labor 'for exposure' with free advertisement of corporate products. They are not even remotely the same issue.
-
If you have been following the news, you should be aware that the people of Lebanon have been under a violent bombardment that has recently escalated. Please consider donating to help them if you can or trying to spread word of the fundraiser.
-
Asheville and Western North Carolina at large are in crisis after Helene, please consider contributing to these local organizations and helping the people whose lives have been destroyed.
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
The piracy part implies you don't believe it's a clear net benefit. It obviously is, which is why publishers are dropping gobsmacking amounts of money on having popular streamers all play their game at the same time. It's also performative - if you screen a movie once, you've seen the movie. If you play a game once, you haven't done everything there is to do. Games obviously have more legs to them which is why streaming has been a huge boon for just about everyone, even singleplayer games.
And my point being that until someone challenges it, its going to be considered "legitimate." I've never said otherwise.
It's their copyright and they choose how its used. If they revoke the license, you can't use it, and if you do, they send a take down request.
Funny. Because I was under the impression that parts "B" and "C" of my post encompass exactly that and was exactly what I was intending when I wrote it because I agree with you on this.
Streamers absolutely generate value for game creators. And that value generation should be taken into account when deciding how much they should pay to license the creator's content for their own direct monetary gain - if the creator so chooses to do it that way (however dumb that may be).
I'm chalking it up to miscommunication or something I don't know.
If Nintendo makes a claim relating to copyright that someone acquiesces to, that's not precedent. It doesn't tell us what the law is, it tells us that buddy posting videos on Mario weighed the four cents he made from the video against the potentially millions of dollars it could cost him to dispute the claim in court and decided it wasn't worth it.
The difference between saying "Nintendo makes a lot of claims" and "Nintendo's claims are supported by the law" is massive. Legal institutions are constantly used in a predatory way and often in ways that have little connection to the underlying validity of the claim. A very straightforward example of this is SLAPP claims, which are almost by definition meritless.
EDIT: I'm going to add to this that while courts have mechanisms for getting claims dismissed on the basis that they are meritless, accessing them is often very expensive, so again a presumption that the existence of a claim is connected to whether that claim is merited is not warranted.
Because restreaming a movie or song doesn't have a net positive effect of increasing sales, brand loyalty, and brand exposure. Which both makes it different and also explains why you are unlikely, barring major consolidation, to see this industry respond similarly.
It's just a dumb take from someone that probably has never seriously studied markets or economics in his life.
Except your analysis was wrong. These are mutually beneficial relationships and that makes them materially different than the examples of streaming a movie you purchased on Twitch. Studios and publishers see major indirect benefits by way of increased sales, brand awareness, and brand loyalty through streaming content and the communities they build and foster.
They aren't getting "nothing," they are, in fact, getting quite a lot. And if they tried to unilaterally monetize or restrict it, they would lose a lot. Which is why you get takes like this and not actions on the part of publishers and studios.
He's kind of right, but it's kind of an irrelevant point. If publishers don't want streamers or YouTubers to play their games, they can issue DMCA takedowns. Publishers are basically okay with the relationship as it is because it benefits them tremendously. Hutchinson makes it seem as if streamers are exploiting game publishers/devs, but they're the ones taking advantage of the free advertising. If they weren't okay with it, they'd just shut it down the way Nintendo did. Sure, publishers could try to take a bigger cut from the likes of Ninja, but then Ninja would just drop their game and play something else.
Is he implying that they should be paying additional funds to publishers beyond the purchase of the game they bought when used in stream, or he is just trying to say that streamers pirate everything lol?
No it isn't at all, the legitimacy has not been determined just because someone acquiesces to the claim because they don't have the resources to fight it.
The publisher makes money off of sales influenced by the streamer and the streamer makes money from subs by streaming the game, it's a fair exchange and mutually beneficial. The publisher is also not paying anything directly for the streamer for the units sold through his influence, so I don't see what's the problem. Should IGN also pay some sort of licensing for covering games and using footage/screenshots in their reviews and articles?
There is a fundamental difference that lies in the fact that "for exposure" means a 0 compensation rule. You are creating something for literal no immediate, tangible gain.
Developers and publishers are making money whether or not the game is streamed, they are not doing spec work. This is simply an avenue to increase their revenue; Which is something a lot of artists also do! They'll pop out an extra piece for someone to advertise with if they already planned on doing other business with that client.
I said these things are similar and explained why they hypothetically could be. You said they are not similar, but you never said why.
Stating that some people find it beneficial doesn't mean it's good.
Stating that some companies want it so bad doesn't mean that applies across the board.
Then how would you describe it? If no one challenges it, and its processed as being allowed (which is what happens, yes?), it's considered legitimate, yes?
Also, this is a weird take considering Gibson doesn't charge guitarists for using their instrument to play concerts (they tend to sponsor people most of the time anyway if anything) and I don't see how this is any different. People are watching the entertainers use the tool of specific games in making content. People are paying money to the personalities, not usually because they're there to experience the game. Like, the developers did get their money already and I don't think they should be entitled to the labor of individual streamers who work their asses off to create content. They paid for your game already, why are you the developer entitled to more money from them?
No, this is completely wrong and not at all how private law works.
Where is E?
E.) The royalties the streamer gets for helping drive additional sales?
Instead what you have is A, B, C. Which everyone is mutually benefitting from. Introduce D and then E is the only thing that makes that equation balance on your fairness scale. But since the streamer has zero legal or economic leverage to enforce or regulate E, everyone is better off from a fairness perspective maintaining A, B, C.
lol, not to be ageist, but streaming seems to baffle a lot of older people
The comparison to movies is ridiculous, as by streaming a movie the person watching will have the entire experience available to them. Games are an interactive medium and watching someone play is not even remotely similar to the experience of using the product. The only way the comparison would make sense with streaming entire movies/songs without licensing would be setting up a service where people could play the game via streaming (or whatever other means) without an agreement with the publisher.
IDK. Games have been selling even before the advent of streaming. Is there a statistic of how much sales have been contributed by streaming? What about potential losses due to streaming? Not questioning your argument but it seems you're an expert on markets and economics.
Pretty much anectodal, I know someone who skipped buying MGSV, CODWW2, TLOU2, and many more because he watched these games online. Some people are really just into the story regardless of the quality. Full experience or not, others enjoy watching others play and ot's enough for them.
It should be considered no differently than Pewdiepie uploading his own narration of a book and making $100k while the author maybe possibly potentially hopefully gets some sales.
I think I pretty clearly explained the difference pretty clearly, when Ninja is paid by a publisher to play a game that is them paying him for a service he provides, as a form of advertising. It's nothing like 'work for exposure' labor exploitation.
Minecraft was basically carried entirely on the backs of Youtubers. Hell some games build in Twitch integration like Hyperscape.
Edit: while i would love to see a proper study, we do have anecdotal evidence to suggest streaming and LPs can benefit game sales in a huge way.
Soooort of. There are concepts like latches that come into play, because there would be an argument to be made that by failing to enforce their rights against video game streamers for so long, and allowing a very lucrative industry to spring up around it, that the rights holders aren't behaving equitably if they appear to have done that for predatory purposes – to allow people to develop an impression that you were ok with their behaviour only so you could get a bigger pay day out of them down the road.
There comes a point where courts could essentially just say "look, you slept on enforcing this for so long that it was completely fair for people to assume you were ok with their behaviour, and trying to change the rules this late in the game is essentially unfair". This kind of argument would be bolstered by the fact that some of the companies who would hypothetically be trying to make these claims have openly courted and paid streamers.
Edit: this was a response to the wrong argument, was intended for the "companies have these rights and it is absolutely clear cut that they can enforce them" line of discussion
Last edited:
Among Us became popular too because apparently someone streamed it. Aren't these exceptions?
So are you saying it's totally cool for Ninja to stream games sans license, but not okay for streamers with, say 2 viewers?
EDIT: also, because companies like the way Ninja streams, that it's okay for literally anyone else, regardless of their content or persona or actions?
Because that's what your argument ostensibly is: because there are streamers that some companies find beneficial, that all streamers are good for all companies.
Yes. It's not a requirement that needs to be used for every game if others were to enforce it. Just like there is royalty free music.
I mean reasoning would tell me that if none of the major publishers or studios are currently seeking to shut down, sue, or impose licensing fees on streamers that they have done their own internal calculations and have either realized the risk vs reward isn't worth it, or more likely, that they are currently benefitting from the relationship much more than they are being harmed.
I'm absolutely certain there are people who watch streamers and never buy the games, or watch a stream as opposed to buying a game, but if that were a big problem we wouldn't expect to see games like Among Us blow up in sales once it blows up in streaming. Or be actually investing development and marketing money into paying streamers to host their games.
That's one of the worst comparisons in this thread, makes absolutely no sense. Providing an audio book replaces the product the copyright holder is selling, streaming video footage of a game do not replace the interactivity, which is the whole point of the product and the medium as a whole.
Listening to someone narrate the book is not the same as reading it, which is the whole point of the product and the medium as a whole.
I think what he means is that streamers should buy a "streamers" license. Similar to how people buy a license for Photoshop for digital art or a license for Sony Vegas for video editing or whatever. Personal use? $60. Professional Use? $600. It's that a good idea? I'm not sure... I think games like Fall Guys or Among Us can make do with the current system... and I don't see anyone buying a streamer license to stream a single player game that can be finished in 12 hours.
Rights change hands and deals expire all the time, but that doesn't mean the company has the right to go wipe it off your HDD. They might stop companies from manufacturing new copies - delisting games from digital storefronts is the 'new' version of this - but they can still sell all existing stock.
If they issued you a license to stream it - and providing it to you for the sole purpose of doing that would stand up in court as a license to do it - then they CAN revoke that and you wouldn't be able to create new content using it, but your old content would still stand as created with a valid license.
The "work for exposure" artist exploitation argument does not apply to well-paid Google employees, folks. I don't even know why anyone even gives that the time of day.
I mean, he's not entirely wrong here. These streamers earn a ton of money from games that other people created. Sure, they add an extra layer of entertainment by various reasons, but at the end of the day the center point of these streams are the games other people crafted.
To a certain extend it'd be completely fair to charge people a licensing fee to use games to earn money. The same way I, for instance, pay a fee to use music in my commercial film productions.
Also, I can imagine it being quite painful working your ass off for multiple years on a game and see some random streamer earn huge bucks in a short time playing that game. But that lincensing fee money will never go to the devs directly regardless.
At the end of the day streamers using a commercial product in their own commercial endeavor to earn money without paying for that commercial product. So regardless of whether streamers provide a ton of exposure and advertising it wouldn't be an unjust move.
To a certain extend it'd be completely fair to charge people a licensing fee to use games to earn money. The same way I, for instance, pay a fee to use music in my commercial film productions.
Also, I can imagine it being quite painful working your ass off for multiple years on a game and see some random streamer earn huge bucks in a short time playing that game. But that lincensing fee money will never go to the devs directly regardless.
At the end of the day streamers using a commercial product in their own commercial endeavor to earn money without paying for that commercial product. So regardless of whether streamers provide a ton of exposure and advertising it wouldn't be an unjust move.
So if it becomes a problem for a publisher, when they do their internal calculations, it will be okay if they decided to restrict the streaming of their games?
Do you think he's only talking about Google Stadia games or how the industry works in general?
There's this whole new and really unheard of thing that book publishers have been doing lately... those are called audiobooks. In both cases the content being sold is being delivered, which is the story and the words written by the author. With games, unless it's enabling someone to press a button for shit to happen, you're not replicating the product.
If anything you should be paying them to market your product.
Wait that's actually what happens
What a clown.
Wait that's actually what happens
What a clown.
I mean if they want to, go for it. The other point I have been making is that, however, doing so immediately undercuts their own goal with doing so, which is it takes away any benefitted exposure or brand fostering and confers that benefit to competitors that will see their games become more prominently used and featured, and their companies not negatively perceived or marginalized within this rather large and growing community. Forcing them to spend additional resources elsewhere to overcome that.
idk whats funnier the clown take or the fact that Stadia also has a built in streaming option
I was talking about a specific scenario, not all scenarios. But none of the scenarios you described are anything like worker exploitation.
Latches is the opposite of what he's describing. Acquiescence to a demand to stop doing something is not at all equivalent to a court deciding that you had a legal obligation to do so.
EDIT: It's worth noting also that the existence of a defence in equity doesn't affect the existence of an entitlement at law. In short, none of this has anything to do with latches.
Double EDIT: I realize after re-reading the line of posts that you probably think Hobbes is talking about developers not telling people to stop streaming their games (where latches/estoppel etc. might be relevant), but what he was actually referring to is individuals responding to C+D notices (and other similar things) by doing what the big company asks without challenging the claim.
Last edited:
If a game is made by a single person and it's streamed for money...is that worker exploitation?
Yeah I totally misread the thread, I actually agree with what you're saying
- Status