Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
... LastLast
  1. #101
    I think google should buy and license all the data they steal about us and sell for their targeted ads.... The hypocrisy is unreal...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitei View Post
    I mean, you realize that the majority do right? Just because you don't bother to actually read the ToS/User Agreement doesn't mean it magically goes away. Pretty much every game from a publisher/company of any decent size has a clause in their licensing agreement that says that the game can only be used for personal, non-commercial purposes only. It's just that most companies don't bother to take legal action against people violating those clauses.
    Did YOU bother to read them? Even EA has no problems with it and its explicity written in their TOS that their games can be used to monetize videos/streams online... Yes, thats right EA........ And its like that for most companies, if you're only guessing or outright blatantly lie, dont even bother to join the discussion....

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by tomten View Post
    I think google should buy and license all the data they steal about us and sell for their targeted ads.... The hypocrisy is unreal...

    - - - Updated - - -



    Did YOU bother to read them? Even EA has no problems with it and its explicity written in their TOS that their games can be used to monetize videos/streams online... Yes, thats right EA........ And its like that for most companies, if you're only guessing or outright blatantly lie, dont even bother to join the discussion....
    EA likely have no problem with it because teenagers recording themselves opening card packs and getting a team of the year Ronaldo or Messi card for Fifa Ultimate online and they go mental throwing their chair/screaming like a madman helps encourage others to spend loads on MTX for card packs.
    Comes a time when we all gotta die...even kings.

  3. #103
    Look this is how legacy media operates, if a cable show or nmovie producer wants to use someone elses IP they have to get permission and sometimes that includes a royalty, but in a practical sense this kind of thing would basically kill streaming and no company has even pursued something like that ( besides probably nintendo on youtube) even though they may legally be able to in regards with streaming, but its never been tested in court whether or not full time streaming is within fair use. But talking about applying rules or standards triggers a visceral reaction in the community, like DMCA and music, or limits on words you can say in twitch chat, I would hope no companies would ever do something, but then again look at the situation with music, and for comparison other media to use songs in videos often do have to pay hefty royalties, the movie yesterday had to pay 10 million $

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Volatilis View Post
    EA likely have no problem with it because teenagers recording themselves opening card packs and getting a team of the year Ronaldo or Messi card for Fifa Ultimate online and they go mental throwing their chair/screaming like a madman helps encourage others to spend loads on MTX for card packs.
    Youtube tried this a few years ago and it didn't go down well and 99% of publishers actively said they wanted content creators to play their games and also updated their EULA's to reflect that.... Almost everyone allows this, the guy is just making shit up...

  5. #105
    That's a strange justification that guy used, "<..> they're streaming games they didn't pay for <..>", when the reality is the opposite. Or, often they are even streaming games they were given by the publisher for free, with the expectation that they will be streamed.

    Now, the discussion of morality and legality of profiting from streaming games is a different, much more complex topic. You'd have to consider things like advertisement value, both in direct sales and brand recognition, versus potential lost sales and bad rep. And you would have to consider stream viewers to be more of a commodity that streamer provides, as most viewers follow personalities, not games. And there are probably a bunch of other factors, and frankly nobody on this forum is even remotely qualified to discuss that, not that it's going to stop anyone ^_^

    Also it's funny to see that coming from someone in charge of stadia, game industry's yet another bidecadal attempt to take away freedom of choice.

  6. #106
    Elemental Lord zealo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    8,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Hitei View Post
    This is only the case for 0.0001% of streamers.
    And a lot of the rest are being sent copies free of charge by publishers with the expectation they'll do the same.

    Don't underestimate how much games being an interactive medium changes the financial calculation of the benefit of it here.

  7. #107
    What if he was under a contract for a few years but got tired of working for a dead service and just wanted to get fired?

  8. #108
    What's the point in using Stadia and re-buying your games when xcloud or geforce now lets you play your own games btw?
    My nickname is "LDEV", not "idev". (both font clarification and ez bait)

    yall im smh @ ur simplified english

  9. #109
    Over 9000! Graeham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    9,708
    Maybe these companies can worry about streamers paying them when the same companies pay people for their private data?

    A pipe dream, of course.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    If you are profiting from someone else’s copyright you need to pay them a royalty. Period.
    You have no idea how any of this works by such a silly statement.
    I have been chosen by the big metal hand in the sky!

  11. #111
    I am Murloc! Kuja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    City of Judgement
    Posts
    5,348
    This is a sure way to make companies earn less. Streamers give so much visibility that many companies pay even smaller streamers crazy big amounts of money, which already tells that companies profit from streamers.

    My gold making blog
    Your journey towards the gold cap!


  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by tomten View Post
    Did YOU bother to read them? Even EA has no problems with it and its explicity written in their TOS that their games can be used to monetize videos/streams online... Yes, thats right EA........ And its like that for most companies, if you're only guessing or outright blatantly lie, dont even bother to join the discussion....
    One company =/= all companies.

    Even most companies that have a specific policy to allow streaming have a very narrow and defined list of what kind of monetization is allowed. For example, Nintendo and Ubisoft very specifically allow monetization from partner program's like twitch's and youtube's, not for any random donations or miscellaneous monetization. Activision and Blizzard policies both explicitly state game content is to be used for non-commercial purposes. Rockstar (Take-Two) similarly specifies non-commercial. Capcom has specified non-profit when asked. 2K specifies non-commercial and additionally states that other ad-driven monetization is not allowed. Bathesda allows for monetization only to cover out-of-pocket costs of making the content, not for profit.

    I am not guessing, nor am I "blatantly lying". You just don't have any idea what you're talking about.

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by CastletonSnob View Post
    twitch bounties is developers/publishers literally paying streamers to play their game. there is nothing else to say about this.

  14. #114
    The streamer is the one playing the game and isn't taking credit for it nor distributing it in any way as I can't play the game I'm watching on the stream. I'm just watching someone else play a game. The success of a streamer isn't even based on how good the game is, it's how entertaining the streamer is.
    Last edited by kail; 2020-10-25 at 02:54 AM.
    The wise wolf who's pride is her wisdom isn't so sharp as drunk.

  15. #115
    A case could be made for streaming to fall under "transformative fair use" I think

  16. #116
    Brewmaster Magical Mudcrab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    All across Nirn.
    Posts
    1,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    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.
    The problem is that you sort-of get into a cyclical argument where:
    - Streamers are providing free advertisement, typically to thousands of live viewers, but VOD or Youtube views range from the thousands to millions.
    - Developers/publishers (we'll just simplify to developers) are providing streamers with the games they play to earn an income and do own the copyright on those games.

    However, this is where things come to a bit of a gray area. Anyone who states that developers are necessarily have the ability to withhold the right from people recording their games, or that streamers can definitely record their gameplay regardless of what the developers want, are going to find themselves with very little actual footing on which to stand their argument. Whether Let's Plays fall under Fair Use is an open question, likely due to a combination of most developers appreciating the free advertisement alongside content creators simply not having the financial resources required to actually settle disputes when they arise. Unfortunately, within most modern countries, copyright laws essentially force online platforms to kowtow to claimants, whether or not their claims are legitimate, and the ineffectual nature of our legal systems essentially mean that the answer to whether fair use protections apply will require a protracted, expensive court case in which one or more content creators will essentially have to martyr their careers as proceedings are ongoing.

    Currently, developers could DMCA videos and streams in order to force online platforms to take down the content, and it would be on the content creator to file a counter claim. Essentially, the current status quo is enforced by inequalities between the parties that allow larger copyrights holders bully content creators into capitulating with what they want, regardless of its actual legality; the larger entity can simply out-resource the smaller one, which matters in legal proceedings which are long and incredibly expensive. However, while this is the case in some niche instances, this policy will likely not be widely adopted. Even some companies that became notorious for taking these actions, such as Nintendo, eventually began ceasing the action due to it being wildly unpopular.

    TL;DR
    - The question of whether streamers playing video games comes under fair use is an open question.
    - Current systems disproportionately favour the claimant, and the expensive, protracted nature of legal proceedings which would follow a DMCA counter-claim provides disincentive to ever having the fair use question ever resolved.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by kail View Post
    The streamer is the one playing the game and isn't taking credit for it nor distributing it in any way as I can't play the game I'm watching on the stream. I'm just watching someone else play a game. The success of a streamer isn't even based on how good the game is, it's how entertaining the streamer is.
    It doesn't matter. Developers own the copyright on the game, its assets, etc., and can file DMCA takedowns if they feel the need to enforce it. The only real recourse is expensive, so content creators are more-or-less forced to accept the DMCA. Their only recourse is to take the claimant to court, which would likely not end well for the content creator, primarily due to the incredibly taxing monetary requirement of long legal battles.
    Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief

  17. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    If you are profiting from someone else’s copyright you need to pay them a royalty. Period.
    So - someone who plays music, and who is profiting from the people who made the instruments - should be paying them a royalty ?

    Should I be paying ASUS a royalty because I earn money using my computer ?

    NO.

    You pay royalties for using someone else's art ... but not someone else's tools.

    What a company may do is impose licencing restrictions on how their tools are used, but royalties are for the artist alone.

    Due to COVID-19, Germany is running out of sausages and cheese.
    The government considers this to be the Wurst Käse scenario

  18. #118
    The Insane Thage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Δ Hidden Forbidden Holy Ground
    Posts
    18,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Volatilis View Post
    EA likely have no problem with it because teenagers recording themselves opening card packs and getting a team of the year Ronaldo or Messi card for Fifa Ultimate online and they go mental throwing their chair/screaming like a madman helps encourage others to spend loads on MTX for card packs.
    That's the point. Nintendo is, to my knowledge, the only major company to have made any real efforts at going after 'unlicensed streaming' of their games, and the only result was that people stopped streaming their games, robbing them of, let's be honest, potentially millions of dollars saved in marketing, especially for the bigger-name streamers who regularly clock 50k+ viewers daily. They shot themselves in the foot, became an industry laughing stock over it, and the policy was such an abject failure (only a tiny handful of streamers played ball and jumped through the hoops to obtain a license, a fraction of what Nintendo were hoping to capitalize on) that they canceled the policy in entirety in 2018 after a few years of punchlines and losing out on free advertising their competitors merrily took advantage of.

    Also, any business strategy coined by the MENSA ubermensch who masterminded Stadia's crash-and-burn failure should be immediately laughed out of the room. The man has the business sense of a tire fire and even Google couldn't trip over itself fast enough to denounce his opinion, saying that he doesn't speak for Stadia or Google in any way, shape, or form. They're fully aware he probably just killed any hope Stadia had of getting free advertising off streaming as well as turned off people who may've been curious about the system.
    Be seeing you guys on Bloodsail Buccaneers NA!



  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    If you are profiting from someone else’s copyright you need to pay them a royalty. Period.
    I love people that act like if they add "Period." to the end of their statement, it somehow makes them right... and make it so that others are unable to voice their opinions. Roll eyes.

    Please, please tell me you don't need people to explain to you why this is actually different than movies or music...

  20. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab View Post
    It doesn't matter. Developers own the copyright on the game, its assets, etc., and can file DMCA takedowns if they feel the need to enforce it. The only real recourse is expensive, so content creators are more-or-less forced to accept the DMCA. Their only recourse is to take the claimant to court, which would likely not end well for the content creator, primarily due to the incredibly taxing monetary requirement of long legal battles.
    My argument is more on the logic of the tweet, not the legalities. If a game publisher did enact a DMCA against a streamer, chances are the streamer will just play something else and the game they were originally streaming gets less public attention. I get and respect the idea of copyright claims but the appeal of games is interacting with them which can't be done just by watching a stream. Unlike videos or music, games are inherently interactive.
    The wise wolf who's pride is her wisdom isn't so sharp as drunk.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •