
The uncertain state of video game streaming online - paglia_s
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/01/to-stream-or-not-to-stream-how-online-streaming-game-videos-exist-in-an-ip-world/
======
belorn
While it would be nice if the legal system clarified the issue, I would lean
towards that copyright can not be expanded to cover self recording. Record of
that kind will naturally include the environment, and as such, the legal
system need to ask what the intention is and what conflict of interests may
exist rather than a black or white view. If someone record themselves eating
at a restaurant then the music in the background and the painting on the walls
should not dictate the legal status of the recording. Same should hold true
for any recording where the intent is not to record the works of others but
rather the person doing the recording.

There is a similar legal uncertainty revolving cosplay, and the details are
very similar. The content of movies and games is the inspiration of the
costumes, but the intent is not to compete on the same market that the games
and movies operate on and there really should not exist any reasonable claim
of conflict between creators.

~~~
dogma1138
It really depends on what the material essence of the stream is the streamer
or the game.

You can go on YouTube and have multi hour long recordings of single player
games that turn the game into a movie for story focused games I can definitely
understand why some publishers would like to put an end to this as I have
watched a few of those instead of buying the game and I know quite a few other
people that would.

In other cases the streamer is the focus of the video either as an “athlete”
or a “skilled professional” and you watch how they play or as an an
entertainer where the game in the background doesn’t serve any purpose other
than a filler or a tie in.

As for cosplay the legality while not formalized is pretty well established if
you commercialize by for example selling kits, molds etc. without licensing
you’ll get sued if you just cosplay at conventions no one would care.
“Professional Cosplayers” are currently the problem because they blur the line
between the comercial and amateur/ hobbyists as many of them well the really
pretty ones are paid to attend events and do promotions basically as
boothbabes in costumes this the biggest thorn as those events are often not
sancationed by the owners of the IP or and could go counter to their
principles or at least the public face they try to maintain. Yes there are
outliers like Nintendo and in some cases companies that didn’t like what was
portrayed on stream but the former is getting better and the latter doesn’t
just apply to games you can still be sued in civil court for damages caused
even if the content was under fair use.

~~~
mstade

        You can go on YouTube and have multi hour long recordings
        of single player games that turn the game into a movie for 
        story focused games I can definitely understand why some 
        publishers would like to put an end to this as I have 
        watched a few of those instead of buying the game and I 
        know quite a few other people that would.
    

I've done this, both for games I own and don't. Last I did it was for the new
Wolfenstein game. I thought it looked cool, so when the demo came around I
downloaded and tried it. At that point though, the suspense of what was going
to come next was gone, and instead I just focused on controls and other things
that bothered me. I didn't buy the game in the end.

Streaming has increasingly informed my purchasing decisions over the past year
or so. Sometimes it's made my buy things I never thought I'd look twice at
(e.g. Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice) and other times as mentioned it's
dissuaded me entirely. It's a double edged sword, for sure.

EDIT: To add to this, I feel that demos filled this niche for me before, but
these days you rarely get anything but a super polished ad video that barely
has any relation with the game. Back in the shareware days, demos were common
place, and they definitely made me buy games more than once. Sometimes the
rest of the game were a dud, most of the time it wasn't. A current game that
does this to great effect is Tomb Raider – it gets you in the game proper,
teaches you the controls, and drops you off right as the story is about to
begin for real. If you purchase the game, you can then pick up right where you
left off (which you can't from watching a video, or playing in a store.) It's
a great example of demo design.

~~~
MattRix
As much as consumers may like demos, all the data I've seen shows that having
a demo actually decreases sales of games, which is why most games don't have
demos anymore.

~~~
edc117
Unless your game is actually good, in which case I'd think it would drive
sales. Anecdotally, I've bought several after trying the demos for them (and
the opposite as well).

There's certainly precedent among some of the larger players. Look at Blizzard
- just about everything has occasional free weekends or trials of some sort
after the initial release.

~~~
chii
demos prevent buyers from making impulse purchases of games. I'd say on the
whole, it decreases sales more than it increases

~~~
mstade
It also prevents buyers from feeling cheated. I'd rather play a demo and
realize the game's just not very good, than shell out $50 for it and more or
less instantly regret it, with very limited (if any) options to return it at
that point.

------
jrockway
Ultimately I'm not too worried about this, simply because of how the money
flows. Twitch is owned by Amazon. YouTube is owned by Google. If it ever comes
down to copyright infringement, Google and Amazon both have billions of
dollars to lose by not defending the creator from the lawsuit (they don't want
a negative precedent affecting their bottom line). So both of these companies
could profitably invest literally billions of dollars defending the creators.
Thus, I'm not worried. Not only is fair use a reasonable argument, they can
simply make the legal proceeding unprofitable for the game companies.
Reputations are at stake as well, which is why you only see tiny companies
you've never heard of DMCA-ing streams.

The game companies too have to like videos and streaming. I have only ever
played games that I've heard about on YouTube and Twitch. I imagine I'm not
the only one.

Disclaimer: I do _not_ work for Google anymore, so this is even more of my own
opinion than usual ;)

------
xg15
The situation reminds me of the famous Casablanca quote about gambling.

So in 99% of cases, streamers have nothing to fear because their activity is
beneficial for all involved parties.

Until they do something wrong, get bad press or otherwise manage to piss off
the developers. Then those will be shocked, _shocked!_ to find that this
stream is conducting copyright infringement on their game - and the streamer
is basically dead.

Whether or not this is a workable state for the industry, that's not how law
is supposed to work.

~~~
mstade
For those unfamiliar with the scene:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_A4Skusro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_A4Skusro)

Still one of my favorite movies of all time.

------
Shivetya
I am a big fan of streaming, I watch mostly Twitch but have tuned into live
Youtube presentations. I also consume more than a few Let's Play videos. I use
streaming I watch on Twitch mostly for entertainment and at times "how to
play" or "would I want to buy" and Let's Play stuff on Youtube for "now that I
have it, how in the hell do I do..."

I do know that twitch recorded streams can have all audio portions deleted if
they play music. since both the streamers voice and the music they play are
bound together it makes for near useless videos. Many streams on twitch are
behind "mature" flags requiring you to self declare age to watch.

So if music can result in a muted stream I fully expect a developer can claim
copyright of the game music/sounds and mute a stream that way. I am not 100%
in either camp but I do lean towards the developers being able to maintain
their ownership which could preclude someone profiting from it.

There are many good streamers, personalities who no matter what they play the
game is almost secondary to engaging their audience. They however tend to
attract sponsors.

I do think there is no question of fair use in review videos but Let's Play
videos may be a different issue. It all comes down to, do we apply the same
rules to protecting music and movies to video games or not. To me games are as
much creative expression as any movie and at times more so.

------
korethr
I'm reminded of another copyright issue from around the last turn of the
millennium -- player pianos. Now, strictly speaking, I don't think player
pianos are quite analogous to videogame streaming. However, I think a good
solution for the legal uncertainty would be similar to Congress' 1909 reaction
to the 1908 Supreme Court decision -- specifically, compulsory licensing.
Anyone can record or perform a cover another's song, and so long as they pay
the statutory licensing fee, they're in the clear, and don't need to seek
permission of the original copyright holder.

(Those of you whom are more versed in copyright law, if I'm getting this
wrong, please correct me.)

So, if streamers needed only worry providing notice and a small check to the
copyright office for the Let's Play streams they'd be preforming this month, I
think that'd be workable. As it stands now, a streamer needs to worry whether
GameFun Studios is going to sue him if they don't like the opinions expressed
in his performance while playing Platform Jump 3. That strikes me as a bit
less workable.

------
moate
This really feels like the 21st century Warhol Vs Campbell's Soup battle.
Until the courts rule, both sides are going to say "obviously we're right
because...". It doesn't matter what makes sense, only what has better legal
precedent.

------
djsumdog
So long as the hosts of the video are commenting on the game, or making fun of
it, or elaborating on the art in some meaningful way, that should fit the
definition of _fair use_ , shouldn't it?

If they're just playing through the game without comment, than maybe not so
much? And then were do speed runs fit in?

Honestly companies should really embrace this. They get promotion on platforms
like Twitch. Watching the game isn't the same as playing it, and it could
encourage people to buy the game. I honestly only watch games I've played
before, allowing me to examine the art and graphics without having to be
involved in it again.

~~~
Splines
I think it really depends on the type of game being played. If you're playing
a game like Gone Home
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak4wU8Gp2RQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak4wU8Gp2RQ)),
where there really aren't many (if any) decisions to make, you can watch the
video and pretty much skip buying the game. On the other end of the spectrum
are games like LoL or CS:GO where watching the game doesn't really replace
playing it yourself.

I enjoy games from both ends of the spectrum, and the story-based games seem
to struggle on the financials (from my perspective), and I would hate to see
gaming culture evolve in a way that makes things harder for them to keep the
lights on.

Consider this - on the extreme end it is the equivalent of someone streaming a
movie while putting their face in the corner with their commentary. Would that
be ok? (I could see a world where there's a technical solution that allows you
to overlay a reaction video on top of your Netflix player. Maybe something
similar could happen for video games.)

