Google Stadia director says streamers should pay companies.

[Kumorii]

I get it, but I don't agree... as many have said, the free marketing makes up for it big time.

[Tinary]

yes you should. it does not matter that you have a license to PLAY it. you cant just buy a movie either and then make cinema.

Tehnically you can, you cant just charge for it but you can tehnically just "watch" it on a big screen "with friends". You can however pay 5 dollars per month to your friend to let you use that chair which just happens to be in that room where the big screen is.

[Super Kami Dende]

They are free to try and make them pay. But the fallout from the gaming community turning on them hard for the their greed would cost them far more than they would gain.

[Saltysquidoon]

ITT
People pretending EULA are somehow universally legally binding because companies wrote them
People pretending copywrite and broadcasting legislation is in any way caught up enough to be able to provide clear guidance on the legality of streaming.
People pretending that the continued erosion of ownership for products that a bought and paid for is in any way just and not just a result of unending greed and lobbying
People pretending the same about copywrite law.

[Yeorgaki]

The OP from stadia who posted this isnt greedy. He has mental health issues and is too focused on the incomes of some of the top streamers. I've met a few characters in my days who had this idea that streamers didnt deserve the millions in donations that they've recieved. And the millions in viewer profits. They're just jealous, they're feel that the streamers are undeserving of the money and they're mad, literally fuming with anger that some lads that never worked a job in their lives have made in a single year what they will make in a lifetime. It's not greed, its jealousy coupled with the messed up nature of their mental state. Heck, it is kinda comparable comparable to hitting the lotto in a few times over each year, for a few years, depending if you were one of the elite streamers. Who did seem to just have that random tug on viewership, oh and those random $50,000 donations that drive some people nuts. Pure jealousy. Some streamers are in fact millionaires entirely by accident. They didnt realize the potential they held until it happened. Some got lucky, others put in tons of effort and were equally successful if not more. It's kinda random + luck based I think. I dont think there is any real strategy to becoming a multi million dollar streamer.

It's like that one couple who was walking their dog on a trail on their property and noticed a rusted can protruding from the ground slightly. I think they though to grab it to dispose of it and as they lifted it rare gold coins began to fall from a rusted opening in the can. As they inspected the 7 total cans found they had a total of 1400 mint condition gold coins from the 19th century, some of them valued at $1,000,000 each if not more because of their condition. The first link below is of the find. The second link as about where the mint coins actually may have came from. A man who worked as a mint clerk in 1901 served jail time after 1500 coins were noticed to be missing after an audit, he served his time and maintained his innocence apparently. Because there is no federal law for finders keepers on stolen mint money. The mint could have reclaimed it but because it happened so long ago there are no actual records of anything relating to the theft or even the initial audit other then a snippet from a newspaper mentioning that the coins were missing a man served jail time. The mint decided to say they wont be investigating as there is no connection at this time, or something like that at least. But it seems if any connection can be made they would infact have to turn the coins over. Oh and they were taxed on each sale too, obviously right? Because like duhhhh, who would've thought otherwise. Pshh, definitely not me.

The find-
https://youtu.be/tsafUfrFfZs

The case of the missing coins-
https://youtu.be/gNVv6ZpEUaI

[Spiffums]

Just tell the companies their content didn't bring in enough viewers to cover the bar bill...................

[klogaroth]

Technically, the law backs this up, but years of non-enforcement combined with actively paying streamers to play games for an audience would likely put a stop to any major rights holder going after individual streamers. Especially if they targeted a specific platform. If an Alphabet owned company started issuing DMCA notices against Twitch streamers, but not anyone on YouTube, there's a solid chance of an anti-trust lawsuit following for selective enforcement of copyright.

As for the entertainment industry in general, they should probably keep quiet on the specifics of how royalties work when it comes to using their work as a tool.

The entertainment industry has a level of control of their product that is way above any other industry. Even ones that you would think are placed to do similar things. It is one of the few products where if you use it as a tool, you owe royalties.

Streamers do not owe the rights holders for the design of any of the other parts of their stream any money, and it would be somewhat absurd to suggest that they did. They don't owe Microsoft royalties when they are using Windows as part of their setup whilst earning profits. Or AMD, or Intel, Nvidia, or Corsair. Or whoever designed the clothes they're wearing, or the chair they're sat on.

The argument of "you're using someone else work to profit" doesn't work. Using someone elses work to profit is what division of labour is. It's the foundation of how the modern world works. Without it we would have to do everything from first principles, and it'd take months just to get a chicken sandwich. Should you buy the tools from them? Yes. Should you owe them money for the rest of their life and then many years after that? No. If I buy a hammer, I can just buy a hammer. I don't need a special commercial hammer license, or to pay royalties to whoever designed it if I use it to make something that I sell. We need a digital equivalent for entertainment.

[anveena]

No wonder stadia was such a failure with people like that at the helm.

[Mic_128]

No, they aren’t. See, for that to be the case the streamer would have to have a deal with said company that stipulates as much.

What about the many many cases of game companies giving streamers free copies of their game?

[Jonnusthegreat]

I wonder if this is covered in the TOU or EULA? Or if it is considered base protection by the law? Without a precedent, it would take a lawsuit to resolve.

[Zenfoldor]

If they try this, they better have some big games on board. Streamers could always just cut out streaming of games that charge royalties, and I think it would probably hurt the game and not the streamer(with above exceptions of very big games) because streaming is a big source of advertisement for videogames, and reality is that a streaming audience can be often personality driven.

[Soikona]

Imagine giving a fuck about opinion of somebody from STADIA, OMEGALUL.

The same said for someone that says “omegalul”

[Zenfoldor]

...and yes, this is not good PR for whatever made this person's opinion matter so much, imo. Not a good take.

[Lora]

https://twitter.com/BangBangClick/st...05553454288896

What do you think of this?

I think that guy is a fucking idiot and no one should care about his shit opinion.

[aceperson]

they are getting paid in free exposure to million of viewers

exposure doesn't pay bills. while i would normally say that these companies usually have enough money anyways, if we let exposure be a valid payment in one genre of art, it approves the use of that argument in other areas. i would much prefer that streamers pay some kind of small fee (say $10) for a streaming license for a game than screw over hundreds of thousands of smaller artist teams just to satisfy a grudge against companies.

[Orange Joe]

I am absolutely not surprised how many corporate puppets revealed themselves in this thread.

Quick someone has a different opinion. He must be (insert stupid thing here)

[aceperson]

Imagine giving a fuck about opinion of somebody from STADIA, OMEGALUL.

imagine giving any credence to the stance of one out of touch console creator that other, successful, console creators could adopt! imagine being careful about such a stupid thing! /sarcasm

[Twdft]

I wonder if this is covered in the TOU or EULA? Or if it is considered base protection by the law? Without a precedent, it would take a lawsuit to resolve.

I can't find it with a 10s google search, but there was an article by Blizzard where they said you can stream/youtube gameplay video as long as you don't pretend to have made the game or make any other claims to it. Basically state somewhere "yeah this is Blizzards game I just play it". You can't charge for your content showing Blizzards game other than the normal ad revenue youtube generates for you. Seemed very reasonable.

I think that guy is a fucking idiot and no one should care about his shit opinion.

The tweet is a two parter. Paying game companies is obviously crazy talk. Game companies already can decide if they allow streaming and under which conditions, I can't think of anyone choosing to take money for it. It's basically free advertisement, Blizzard is fine with it (see above).

First sentence about using music that isn't related to the game you're streaming (putting on a cd of some artist as background) is more reasonable. You should ask the artist first if you can use their music. Just as you would have to ask the game company first to stream their games, but you don't have to because they probably all allow it.

[Zyky]

No, they aren’t. See, for that to be the case the streamer would have to have a deal with said company that stipulates as much.

No not really. Every time a game is streamed or put on youtube that's exposure, it's free advertising.

[Jonnusthegreat]

I can't find it with a 10s google search, but there was an article by Blizzard where they said you can stream/youtube gameplay video as long as you don't pretend to have made the game or make any other claims to it. Basically state somewhere "yeah this is Blizzards game I just play it". You can't charge for your content showing Blizzards game other than the normal ad revenue youtube generates for you. Seemed very reasonable.

I'm sure they are allowing it - my question is whether they are allowing it out of the 'kindness of their heart' (read: advertising) or if they are legally required to allow it. Once streaming reaches critical mass are they just going to cash in?