Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Stadia Creative Director Triggers Uproar on Twitter

7 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I mean then should people who do product reviews on YouTube have to pay the brand of the product? I mean if they are making money for doing a reviews on a corsair case should they be paying corsair because they are making money off of their product? I think there is definitely an issue if we go down that path. 

Someone mentioned something similar earlier in the thread, those are physical objects and are not protected under copyright laws. According to copyright.gov, copyright covers “original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture.” 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't wait till this extends into game devs eventually pushing for EULAs that prevent criticism aimed at their games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

go away alex you already ruined AC 3

also 
 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler
Spoiler

Intel i7 4790K (4.0 GHz) | MSI Z97-GAMING 5 | Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3-1866 2x8GB | Asus GeForce GTX 1070 OC Strix | Samsung 840 Pro Series 256GB | Corsair RM 850W | Corsair H90 94.0 CFM | Logitech® Wireless Combo MK330 | Cooler Master HAF XM | Dell S2240L 60Hz 21.5 IPS | 

PCPartPicker 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A youtube director also responded LUL

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

 

There is no need for personal attacks and insults here just because you disagree with what a person said. It just makes you look bad. Feel free use twitter if you really want to use that kind of language 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

There is no need for personal attacks and insults here just because you disagree with what a person said. It just makes you look bad. Feel free use twitter if you really want to use that kind of language 

i mean think about it why else would he use his corporate twitter to make such a tweet. hes trying to pave the way for stadia to charge streamers for streaming the games since thats the only way stadia can survive

Link to post
Share on other sites

All my posts and personal information and log entries are (C) 2020 by me. all rights reserved.

There, that should fund my retirement nicely! ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

i mean think about it why else would he use his corporate twitter to make such a tweet. 

He is explicitly using his personal, non-corporate Twitter account.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

He is explicitly using his personal, non-corporate Twitter account.

sorry maybe corporate account is the wrong word but he has a checkmark and he had stadia director in his bio so he should have tweeted that in an anonymous account

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

i was just highlighting how ridiculous what hes saying is and hes not some low level employee hes a director so he could make that decision 

 

also again hes a hypocrite because google is doing the same thing to news companies 

Lawl's other post is right though.  Many people don't seem to understand the fair-use and what copyright really is.  To be clear, it's not hypocritical they are two very different cases.

 

In the case of Google and News outlets, News outlets have the right not to be on Google News (but they still choose to be on there).  If they don't want a snippet of the article on there they can choose not to.  Also, Google tried removing the snippet part only going with headlines (but they wanted it added back on and Google to pay them).  It really wasn't a case of copyright...for myself it is like arguing Google should be paying all the websites it crawls...since people are searching for that content.

 

In the case of Games vs Streamers...the game itself is the copyrighted work, and the act of playing it doesn't really transform the content to something new.  It is realistically up to the developer whether or not they allow you to do it.  Although you purchased a game, you don't get the distribution rights of it.

 

A comment as well, a lot of reaction videos on youtube are actually in violation despite being claimed as fair use (just not really pursued).  Ultimately, I think it is going to happen...a game company will offer something like a monthly paid streaming version (maybe with a few perks, to entice people and to justify it without being clear why they are offering it), and then eventually go after the larger player who don't have the streaming version.  Or there will be a few larger streamers who get taken to court by a game dev. who just needs money (and doesn't care that it's a PR nightmare)

3735928559 - Beware of the dead beef

Link to post
Share on other sites

I first heard about this on the WAN show this morning and just watched TechLinked so I'm not entirely over every aspect of this. I watch a couple of streamers and enjoy the content but I've always wondered about the legality of it all. Of course there's the free publicity angle but as others have mentioned, it's really up to the copyright holder to decide whether they want that free publicity or not. Now, most of them would and do as has been discussed but you could imagine a controversial yet popular streamer playing a game and the developers really wanting to distance themselves from someone they ardently disagree with. There's that often used example in the film industry of a serial killer drinking Coke. The Coca-Cola Company probably would not like that association with their brand and would take measures to remove it so you generally check first.

 

Now, I'm not saying that's a great way of doing things here because people generally should be free to play whatever they like but the 'free publicity' thing does strike me a little like the 'pay in exposure' issue that's rampant in other areas of art (and video games are art in my opinion). And also as others have mentioned, buying say a CD does not give you the right to broadcast it as some sort of event. At least in my country, if venues wish to play music (live or recorded), when I last looked they need to have a licence with APRA (royalties to songwriters) and PPCA (royalties to owners of the sound recordings - this is only required for pre-recorded music, live-only venues only need their APRA licence). I think then the venues/performers report the music that was played and at the end of the financial year, the money gets distributed to the artists as a percentage from the whole kitty. I think a system like this could work for game streaming services where if they want to have streamers play their games on that platform, the platform itself has to pay into a form of Performance Right's Organisation for games. An ongoing blanket licence should be more cost effective than forcing all streamers to licence their games individually though I won't deny that the platforms will probably try and increase their percentage from ad revenue/paid subs and whatever else to justify the extra expense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

He is explicitly using his personal, non-corporate Twitter account.

he has used his personal twitter to promote the things he's doing since he was at reative director at ubisoft for AC3 back in 2011-2013, when you say he's using non-corporate you mean the stadia account? 

 

Spoiler
Spoiler

Intel i7 4790K (4.0 GHz) | MSI Z97-GAMING 5 | Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3-1866 2x8GB | Asus GeForce GTX 1070 OC Strix | Samsung 840 Pro Series 256GB | Corsair RM 850W | Corsair H90 94.0 CFM | Logitech® Wireless Combo MK330 | Cooler Master HAF XM | Dell S2240L 60Hz 21.5 IPS | 

PCPartPicker 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Lawl's other post is right though.  Many people don't seem to understand the fair-use and what copyright really is.  To be clear, it's not hypocritical they are two very different cases.

 

In the case of Google and News outlets, News outlets have the right not to be on Google News (but they still choose to be on there).  If they don't want a snippet of the article on there they can choose not to.  Also, Google tried removing the snippet part only going with headlines (but they wanted it added back on and Google to pay them).  It really wasn't a case of copyright...for myself it is like arguing Google should be paying all the websites it crawls...since people are searching for that content.

 

In the case of Games vs Streamers...the game itself is the copyrighted work, and the act of playing it doesn't really transform the content to something new.  It is realistically up to the developer whether or not they allow you to do it.  Although you purchased a game, you don't get the distribution rights of it.

 

A comment as well, a lot of reaction videos on youtube are actually in violation despite being claimed as fair use (just not really pursued).  Ultimately, I think it is going to happen...a game company will offer something like a monthly paid streaming version (maybe with a few perks, to entice people and to justify it without being clear why they are offering it), and then eventually go after the larger player who don't have the streaming version.  Or there will be a few larger streamers who get taken to court by a game dev. who just needs money (and doesn't care that it's a PR nightmare)

its basically the same thing the news companies are saying google needs to pay them to provide advertisement for their website and the guy is saying streamers should pay the game devs to advertise their game. 

if you are talking about visual novels then id agree but thats why they are called visual novels and are not really considered games. 

lets take league of legends for example champions like riven have animations cancels that the devs didnt even know about until it was found by the players. also the devs are mostly a bunch of bronze players so saying that challenger players don't add anything to the game that the devs don't already is just ridiculous. 

you think marc merrell can do this?

requiring license will at the least kill small streamers but whats most likely going to happen is all streamers and a lot of players are just going to boycott your game

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched WANk show on LTT and I can't agree that streaming games can affect sales. Coz you can't on ANY level compare interactive experience of game in person with watching a stream. No matter how much content there is in the video. However, there can be enough spoilers there that it can RUIN the experience. Which is why I often entirely remove myself from watching ANY video content of the game down to trailers. That was the case with Alien:Isolation where I purposely avoided all leaks, teasers or videos. And my god I'm thankful for not bending over to the hype. Because the first encounter of the alien in that mess hall wouldn't be nearly as gut wrenching as it was thanks to not knowing anything about the game. I had amazing experience with that game thanks to that. If I watched any video content I'd just ruin that.

 

I also wouldn't want to watch something like Deus Ex ahead of actually playing the game. Because it would entirely ruin the experience. And people who are actually gamers damn well know that is true. People who watch such narration and story heavy games prior playing the actual game, they never had intention on playing one themselves. Because if they did, they'd ruin the experience entirely.

 

Which is one of reasons why I loved when demo games either gave you first level of the game or like Half-Life, a level that's not even present in the final game. First level just intros you into the actual game without spoiling anything. When you play the actual full game later you just get continuation. Or level not present as with Half-Life Uplink, it gives experience that doesn't spoil anything and actually creates further mystery.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | ASUS Strix X570-E | G.Skill 32GB 3600MHz CL16 | PALIT RTX 3080 10GB GamingPro | Samsung 850 Pro 2TB | Seagate Barracuda 8TB | Sound Blaster AE-9 MUSES

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the gaming industry is such a large industry now that many of the people in the business are not part of the gaming community, they are just 'using' the gaming community.

 

This results in such hot takes on the subject like that tweeted.

 

Unfortunately, Its not surprising, neither is the 'backlash'.

CPU: Intel i7 3930k w/OC & EK Supremacy EVO Block | Motherboard: Asus P9x79 Pro  | RAM: G.Skill 4x4 1866 CL9 | PSU: Seasonic Platinum 1000w | VDU: Panasonic 42" Plasma |

GPU: Gigabyte 1080ti Gaming OC w/OC & Barrow Block | Sound: Asus Xonar D2X - Z5500 -FiiO X3K DAP/DAC - ATH-M50S | Case: Phantek Enthoo Primo White |

Storage: Samsung 850 Pro 1TB SSD + Samsung 850 Evo 256GB SSD | Cooling: XSPC D5 Photon 270 Res & Pump | 2x XSPC AX240 White Rads | NexXxos Monsta 80x240 Rad P/P |

Link to post
Share on other sites

he is right no matter what you highly intelligent people feel like saying.

 

you do NOT decide for devs whether you are giving them "free advertising". if anyone here says that then please send me a dm with your contract details. i would like to start giving you free life advise from now on which you of course have to take because i decided it's free good life advise from me. it'll start with you sending me all your money but don't worry, it's free advise i'm giving you, just shut it and thank me for it.

 

if devs want your "free advertising" they'll send you a free license, all the big streamers would get them the same way linus gets free pc hardware to review all the time. he doesn't just steal the hardware and say that they shouldn't prosecute him cause... he is giving them free advertising. anyone who disagrees is just dumb but that's what can be expected from the gaming community eh, not exactly the hobby successful people have

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2020 at 3:31 PM, Shreyas1 said:

I would compare it more to a reaction video. If you pay for a movie and react to it on youtube, my understanding is that it can fall under fair use (not a lawyer obviously). With streamers, through playing the game, potentially editing it and adding their reaction to it, I would argue that it does not fall under copyright and they shouldn't have to pay extra.

Reaction videos are not fair use, they're a way to "transform" some other video and do destroy any value in watching the reacted media if the people watching the react video are using it to replace watching the video in question. Hence reaction videos of "new" content always does a lot of harm, since it can genuinely put off people from watching/playing/reading that content if the react'er is just tearing it down.

 

Like on it's face, yes, game streaming is copyright infringement, but that's only if you, the streamer/recorder is doing the minimum of transformative efforts, like if all you're doing is recording the cutscenes, that's not fair use. If you record the entire story beginning to end, also not fair use. But the transformative nature of playing the game, especially games with minimal story to them (eg Mario and Zelda games are literately designed to have very little story) make the transformative element bigger, as no two people can play the game the same.

 

This is why it's really in game developers interests to make games have elements that streaming the game benefits from. For example, ad-hoc co-op (Genshin Impact, which has the user's ID number on the screen while you play) could allow the people in the stream to join in a game that is otherwise single-player. Among Us also has the game code on the screen, to join. Jackbox games, use the web browser (on a mobile phone) for people to join in the game being hosted by the streamer, and anyone who doesn't join the game as a player, joins the audience.

 

So it's possible to make games streamable, and the developers can facilitate any extra revenue paths from this by making the game "free to play" in multiplayer mode, as long as someone (paid for) hosting the game. People will want to buy the game so they can host their own parties. If server infrastructure needs to exist (eg Among Us, JackBox) to facilitate this, then perhaps just have subscription costs for cloud-hosting the game on a dedicated server instead of from the host's location.

 

Stadia shows how this can actually work, if they're willing to go that far, where a streamer could stream a chroma-key'd video to youtube that is overlayed over the Stadia footage, and the people watching it, could also provide input to games that support it, using their own controllers, or menus that show up in the video stream.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something doesn't seem right about this transformation aspect of the argument to me though I must be misunderstanding it. Just because you transform something doesn't mean the copyright holder doesn't have rights over the use of their art. If I wrote a song and someone did a version that significantly changed some of the lyrics (not for the purposes of parody) and made money off it, I would at least want a cut of the money. I remember looking this up a while ago for a project I was working on and, in music, anyone can do their own cover of a song and not have to obtain a licence. They have to pay royalties on revenue generated by the cover, though. But if you want to substantially change it, you need to get express permission from the original copyright holder in the form of a "derivative licence". At the end of the day, you're using someone else's work as a basis for your own rather than creating something entirely new from scratch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

streamers should be paying the developers and publishers of the games they stream.

...they do? Unless they get a free copy from the publisher or something they need to pay for the game like everyone else...

On 10/22/2020 at 11:54 PM, Radium_Angel said:

And here's the problem. Everything is a license, nothing is owned outright any more. Every dev wants perpetual money.

Fuck that noise.

I buy CDs and DVDs on occasion, but thanks to fuckwits like the RIAA and MPAA, I buy them used.

May I interest you in copyright abolition? :P

On 10/23/2020 at 12:23 AM, The_russian said:

There's a difference between paying for a product and using that product to make money. Think of it like buying a song on Google Play Music or Apple Music. Even though you paid for the song, you are not allowed to use it in a YouTube video and make money.

I think there's a crucial difference in that watching someone play a game is usually not a direct substitute for playing the game yourself. On the other hand you could conceivably use someone's video or livestream just for the music (though that's really a stretch, especially for partial use of songs - I think copyright law is stupid to begin with in case that wasn't clear).

On 10/23/2020 at 12:28 AM, poochyena said:

We are discussing for business use here, not personal use. Buying a CD or DVD, new or used, does not give you the license to make money selling copies of the media.

But streamers don't sell copies of the game. Also, business software licenses typically include more than the base product you get with a personal license (e.g. direct line support, more than one license, more features...). That's the only reason business licenses make sense in my opinion.

 

Why should the streamer be paying extra for the game just because they're making money from it and not for their graphics card or internet service? Making money with something you bought isn't reason enough for the vendor of that product to be demanding more money from you.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

What is scaling and how does it work? Asus PB287Q unboxing! Console alternatives :D Watch Netflix with Kodi on Arch Linux Sharing folders over the internet using SSH Beginner's Guide To LTT (by iamdarkyoshi)

Sauron'stm Product Scores:

Spoiler

Just a list of my personal scores for some products, in no particular order, with brief comments. I just got the idea to do them so they aren't many for now :)

Don't take these as complete reviews or final truths - they are just my personal impressions on products I may or may not have used, summed up in a couple of sentences and a rough score. All scores take into account the unit's price and time of release, heavily so, therefore don't expect absolute performance to be reflected here.

 

-Lenovo Thinkpad X220 - [8/10]

Spoiler

A durable and reliable machine that is relatively lightweight, has all the hardware it needs to never feel sluggish and has a great IPS matte screen. Downsides are mostly due to its age, most notably the screen resolution of 1366x768 and usb 2.0 ports.

 

-Apple Macbook (2015) - [Garbage -/10]

Spoiler

From my perspective, this product has no redeeming factors given its price and the competition. It is underpowered, overpriced, impractical due to its single port and is made redundant even by Apple's own iPad pro line.

 

-OnePlus X - [7/10]

Spoiler

A good phone for the price. It does everything I (and most people) need without being sluggish and has no particularly bad flaws. The lack of recent software updates and relatively barebones feature kit (most notably the lack of 5GHz wifi, biometric sensors and backlight for the capacitive buttons) prevent it from being exceptional.

 

-Microsoft Surface Book 2 - [Garbage - -/10]

Spoiler

Overpriced and rushed, offers nothing notable compared to the competition, doesn't come with an adequate charger despite the premium price. Worse than the Macbook for not even offering the small plus sides of having macOS. Buy a Razer Blade if you want high performance in a (relatively) light package.

 

-Intel Core i7 2600/k - [9/10]

Spoiler

Quite possibly Intel's best product launch ever. It had all the bleeding edge features of the time, it came with a very significant performance improvement over its predecessor and it had a soldered heatspreader, allowing for efficient cooling and great overclocking. Even the "locked" version could be overclocked through the multiplier within (quite reasonable) limits.

 

-Apple iPad Pro - [5/10]

Spoiler

A pretty good product, sunk by its price (plus the extra cost of the physical keyboard and the pencil). Buy it if you don't mind the Apple tax and are looking for a very light office machine with an excellent digitizer. Particularly good for rich students. Bad for cheap tinkerers like myself.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2020 at 11:48 AM, RejZoR said:

That was the case with Alien:Isolation where I purposely avoided all leaks, teasers or videos. And my god I'm thankful for not bending over to the hype. Because the first encounter of the alien in that mess hall wouldn't be nearly as gut wrenching as it was thanks to not knowing anything about the game

Man that Game was amazing lucky for me I just finished university and got myself a PS4 with this game and had no idea about it whatsoever. What a (at times drawn out) ride!

 

i hope your post didn‘t ruin the experience for anyone though (/s - after >5 years it‘s ok I guess lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2020 at 5:45 PM, eeeee1 said:

then wouldnt game developers already have drafted some eula or terms and conditions document forbidding this if it were such a big deal? also this BENEFITS them greatly so even if if made you a few twitch subs, it would sell the developer attention and a few copies of their game

Eula and terms and conditions rarely hold up in court when they try and put large restrictions like not being able to stream yourself playing the game. Most of the time terms and conditions and eula are not used for civil law suits but rather giving them the right to ban people from a service. An example would be being banned in league for toxic behavior because its in the terms and conditions but they can't sue you for breaking those terms and conditions. I think people have this weird concept that terms and conditions and eula can be used in civil lawsuits when that's not what they are used for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Kisai said:

Reaction videos are not fair use, they're a way to "transform" some other video and do destroy any value in watching the reacted media if the people watching the react video are using it to replace watching the video in question. Hence reaction videos of "new" content always does a lot of harm, since it can genuinely put off people from watching/playing/reading that content if the react'er is just tearing it down.

 

Like on it's face, yes, game streaming is copyright infringement, but that's only if you, the streamer/recorder is doing the minimum of transformative efforts, like if all you're doing is recording the cutscenes, that's not fair use. If you record the entire story beginning to end, also not fair use. But the transformative nature of playing the game, especially games with minimal story to them (eg Mario and Zelda games are literately designed to have very little story) make the transformative element bigger, as no two people can play the game the same.

 

This is why it's really in game developers interests to make games have elements that streaming the game benefits from. For example, ad-hoc co-op (Genshin Impact, which has the user's ID number on the screen while you play) could allow the people in the stream to join in a game that is otherwise single-player. Among Us also has the game code on the screen, to join. Jackbox games, use the web browser (on a mobile phone) for people to join in the game being hosted by the streamer, and anyone who doesn't join the game as a player, joins the audience.

 

So it's possible to make games streamable, and the developers can facilitate any extra revenue paths from this by making the game "free to play" in multiplayer mode, as long as someone (paid for) hosting the game. People will want to buy the game so they can host their own parties. If server infrastructure needs to exist (eg Among Us, JackBox) to facilitate this, then perhaps just have subscription costs for cloud-hosting the game on a dedicated server instead of from the host's location.

 

Stadia shows how this can actually work, if they're willing to go that far, where a streamer could stream a chroma-key'd video to youtube that is overlayed over the Stadia footage, and the people watching it, could also provide input to games that support it, using their own controllers, or menus that show up in the video stream.

 

so the verge was right the people who were doing reaction videos to their PC build was infringing on their copyright

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

so the verge was right the people who were doing reaction videos to their PC build was infringing on their copyright

Yes they were. However, fair use MIGHT have been used as a defense for the people making reaction videos.

 

It depends entirely on what kind of "reaction videos" they flagged. The only legal precedent we have for this type of thing is the H3H3 lawsuit, and that ruling specifically said that the ruling (H3H3 won and it was fair use) was for that specific video, not some overall ruling that "all reaction videos are fair use". The ruling even stated that it swayed into fair use because of the extensive skits interspersed between the original video clips, rather than the "group viewing session" style of reaction videos.

 

So if you only have a little green screened cut out of yourself in the corner and are just watching the video straight through, you're probably infringing on their copyright. If you react to a couple of seconds, do some skit, react to a few more seconds, do a complete cut away from the original video and talk about it, and go back and forth like that, then it is probably fair use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

so the verge was right the people who were doing reaction videos to their PC build was infringing on their copyright

the few who they copyright striked almost certainly fall under fair use. videos like bitwits so farm based on precedent are fair use

 

Good luck, Have fun, Build PC, and have a last gen console for use once a year. I should answer most of the time between 9 to 3 PST

NightHawk 2.0: R7 2700 @4.0ghz, B450m Steel Legends, H105, 4x8gb Geil EVO 2866, XFX RX 580 8GB, Corsair RM750X, 500 gb 850 evo, 500gb 850 pro and 5tb Toshiba x300

Skunkworks: R5 3500U, 16gb, 250 intel 730, 500gb Adata XPG 6000 lite, Vega 8. HP probook G455R G6

Condor (MC server): 6600K, z170m plus, 16gb corsair vengeance LPX, samsung 750 evo, EVGA BR 450.

Bearcat (F@H box) core 2 duo, 1x4gb EEC DDR2, 250gb WD blue, 9800GTX+, STRIX 660ti, supermicro PSU, dell T3400.

Rappter(unfinished compute server) HP DL380G6 2xE5520 24GB ram with 4x146gb 10k drives and 4x300gb 10K drives, running NOTHING can't get anything to work

Spirt  (unfinished NAS) Cisco Security Multiservices Platform server e5420 12gb ram, 1x6 1tb raid 6 for plex + Need funding 16+1 2tb raid 6 for mass storage.

PSU Tier List      Motherboard Tier List      How to get PC parts cheap    HP probook 445R G6 review

 

"Stupidity is like trying to find a limit of a constant. You are never truly smart in something, just less stupid."  @CircleTech

Camera Gear: Canon SL2, 60D, T5, 24-105 F, 50mm F1.4, 75-300 III, rokinon 25 T1.5, Helios44-m, Sony FS700R, 2 Cos-11D lavs

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

the few who they copyright striked almost certainly fall under fair use. videos like bitwits so farm based on precedent are fair use

I assume you refer to the H3H3 lawsuit when you say the bitwit video would fall under fair use based on precedent.

The H3H3 lawsuit specifically stated that the H3H3 video was a different category compared to the "group viewing" style reaction videos which is what the Lyle video would fall under.

There is no precedent that the type of video bitwit made is fair use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Newegg

×