10 ms·

The uncertain state of video game streaming online

56 points by paglia_s 9y ago

belorn 9y ago
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.
- herbst 9y ago
  > 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. From what I can tell most streams depend fully on third party graphics like games for their visual content. I like your argument. But i totally see why this would be different. Edit:// adding to that fair use allows snippets to be used. While let's plays more or less show uncut content from start to end. Imagine that with a movie.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
    - YeOakAye 9y ago
      Years ago System Shock 2 had a demo which was basically just the introduction to the story, and the new Prey recently was similar. Both lead to me purchasing the full game almost instantly after completing the demo. Also, in addition to streamers and youtube, I find the 2 hour playtime window for which Steam will refund unquestioningly, helps alleviate the stress of making a bad purchase. Provided the game is available on Steam, of course!
      - mstade 9y ago
        That's exactly how the Tomb Raider demo is, and just like you it led me to purchase the game afterwards – I wanted to see the rest! Almost certainly I wouldn't if I had watched the thing streamed though. The two hour window is nice, but when does it start? I'll buy games sometimes because they are a good deal, during a sale or something, but not play them until long after. Regardless, I only ever play on my PS4, so I buy games through their store. Not sure what the return policy there is.
Shivetya 9y ago
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.
djsumdog 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.)
moate 9y ago
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.
jrockway 9y ago
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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
korethr 9y ago
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.

56 points by paglia_s 9y ago

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.

herbst 9y ago
> 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. From what I can tell most streams depend fully on third party graphics like games for their visual content. I like your argument. But i totally see why this would be different. Edit:// adding to that fair use allows snippets to be used. While let's plays more or less show uncut content from start to end. Imagine that with a movie.
dogma1138 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
  - YeOakAye 9y ago
    Years ago System Shock 2 had a demo which was basically just the introduction to the story, and the new Prey recently was similar. Both lead to me purchasing the full game almost instantly after completing the demo. Also, in addition to streamers and youtube, I find the 2 hour playtime window for which Steam will refund unquestioningly, helps alleviate the stress of making a bad purchase. Provided the game is available on Steam, of course!
    - mstade 9y ago
      That's exactly how the Tomb Raider demo is, and just like you it led me to purchase the game afterwards – I wanted to see the rest! Almost certainly I wouldn't if I had watched the thing streamed though. The two hour window is nice, but when does it start? I'll buy games sometimes because they are a good deal, during a sale or something, but not play them until long after. Regardless, I only ever play on my PS4, so I buy games through their store. Not sure what the return policy there is.

Shivetya 9y ago

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.

djsumdog 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.)

moate 9y ago

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.

jrockway 9y ago

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 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.

korethr 9y ago

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.