> it is as if the person that supplies the paints has copyright of the painting I think that video games are a different enough medium that normal intuition do

> it is as if the person that supplies the paints has copyright of the painting I think that video games are a different enough medium that normal intuition doesn't apply, and that this example is not applicable. I think most people would be unsurprised if a live-stream reading of a novel was found to infringe copyright, but how far would you have to change things to not? Would an interpretive dance adaptation of a novel infringe copyright? Almost certainly not. What about a real-time translation into Tolkien's Elvish? That probably wouldn't either, but translations are generally considered to fall under the same copyright, so maybe. A sufficient portion of some video games is enough like a movie that I entirely understand the logic behind not allowing live streaming of play-throughs, while others (Minecraft) are clearly centered on user content enough that they would fall on the other side of that line. I think it's unrealistic to try and describe the situation as clearly fair use or clearly infringement. That said, I do feel that the extension of copyright length is doing damage to the growth of culture, not least in the area of video games that will be lost to time.