Should Streamers Pay Game Developers? Google Responds After Stadia Dev Resurfaces The Debate

[Fulcrum29]

As things are going now, we will soon require a SABC TV license to stream our games.

 

[Fulcrum29]

You can not DMCA on just game play...

Like I said, if you follow the whole story its what started the whole debate. Streamers where complaining about False copyright strikes. Some publishing houses do this with partners when you talk bad about their games or show things they don't want the viewers to know like say Apex loot bug.

Thats where Google erm in mean Alex said Streamers should pay Publishers to streams...

Its Just WRONG.

I was surprised to see how quickly this debate turned. From music to gaming, and it was Hutchinson which pushed it into gaming. Among Us was used to carry the debate, so let's look at the EULA,

Terms of Use - Among Us

Please read this end user license agreement (“EULA”) very carefully. By accessing or using Among Us (the “Site”) and/or downloading/installing the Among Us Software (“Software”), you are agreeing to the...

among-us.io

Section 4: License Grant

Subject to the terms of this EULA, Among Us grants you a revocable, non-exclusive, limited, non-sublicense able license to use the Site and install and use one copy of the Software on a single computer. Among Us maintains all ownership rights of the Site and Software, including all title, interest in, and intellectual property rights therein. All rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by Among Us. All title and copyrights in and to the Site and Software (including but not limited to any content, images, graphics, video, audio, text and other features incorporated in the Site and Software), and any copies of the Site and Software are protected by the copyright laws and international treaty provisions, as well as other intellectual property laws. Therefore, you must treat the Site and Software like any other protected copyrighted material. Except as expressly set forth in this EULA, you may not copy the Site and Software or any accompanying materials therein. Because the Site and Software contain Among Us’s proprietary information, you agree: (a) to hold in the strictest confidence all code and other technical elements of the Site and Software, (b) to not directly or indirectly copy, reproduce, distribute, manufacture, reveal, report, publish, case to be disclosed or otherwise transfer anything on or in the Site and Software to any third party, and (c) not to make use of the Site and Software other than for your own personal and non-commercial purpose.

and that is a standard 'American' license grand, and rest is stipulated to protect the actual IP. We have seen on Steam, where additional Grants are made in terms with Steam's use policy like with library sharing and stream sharing.

Now to look at another EULA,

Eula

MINECRAFT END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

ONE MAJOR RULE

The one major rule is that you must not distribute anything we've made unless we specifically agree to it. By "distribute anything we've made" what we mean is:

• give copies of our Game to anyone else;
• make commercial use of anything we've made;
• try to make money from anything we've made; or
• let other people get access to anything we've made in a way that is unfair or unreasonable;

unless we specifically agree to it. And so that we are crystal clear, "the Game" or "what we have made" includes, but is not limited to, the client or the server software for our Game and includes Minecraft and Minecraft: Java Edition on all platforms. It also includes updates, patches, downloadable content, add-ons, or modified versions of a Game, part of those things, or anything else we've made.

Otherwise we are quite relaxed about what you do - in fact we really encourage you to do cool stuff - but just don't do those things that we say you can't.

USING OUR GAME

You have been granted a license to the Game so you can play and use it, yourself, on your devices.

Below we also give you limited rights to do other things but we have to draw a line somewhere or else people will go too far. If you wish to make something pertaining to anything we've made we're humbled, but please make sure that it can't be interpreted as being official and that it complies with this EULA and the brand and asset usage guidelines and above all do not make commercial use of anything we've made.

The license and permission we give you to use and play our Game can be revoked if you break any of the terms of this EULA.

When you buy our Game, you receive a license that gives you permission to install the Game on your own personal device and use and play it on that device as set out in this EULA. This permission is personal to you, so you are not allowed to distribute the Game (or any part of it) to anyone else. This also means you cannot sell or rent the Game, or make it available for access to other people and you cannot pass on or resell any license keys. You may however give gift codes that have been bought through our official gift code system. This is important to help us stop piracy and fraud and to protect our Game. It is also important to prevent members of our community from buying pirated versions of our Game or fraudulent license keys - which we may cancel, such as in the case of fraud.

...

Within reason you're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the Game. By "within reason" we mean that you can't make any commercial use of them or do things that are unfair or adversely affect our rights unless we've specifically said it's okay in this EULA, allowed it through the Brand and Asset Usage Guidelines, or provided for it in a specific agreement with you. If you upload videos of the game to video sharing and streaming sites you are however allowed to put ads on them. Also, don't just rip art resources and pass them around, that's no fun.

Essentially the simple rule is do not make commercial use of anything we've made unless we've specifically said it's okay. Oh and if the law expressly allows it, such as under a "fair use" or fair dealing" doctrine then that's ok too - but only to the extent that the law applicable to you says so.

In order to ensure the integrity of the Game, we need all Game downloads and updates to come from an authorized source. It's also important for us that 3rd party tools/services don't seem "official" as we can't guarantee their quality. It's part of the responsibility we have to the customers of Minecraft. Make sure that you read through our brand and asset usage guidelines too.

Many more loosely applied words to indicate one important aspect to use, to do no harm to their IP image or brand. To what the law extent to in application have more to do with your local law than the law governing the IP.

All the above is okay, because you acquired a license to use, but what happens when you subscribe to a game’s library subscription or cloud gaming subscription, both which are services? Suddenly the EULA is that you signed with the service's provider, and they can dictate the use on their service or available content. I won’t be surprised that Google Stadia is exploring such revenue models, to monetise game streams, with the publishers they have onboarded with.

 

[rietrot]

I was surprised to see how quickly this debate turned. From music to gaming, and it was Hutchinson which pushed it into gaming. Among Us was used to carry the debate, so let's look at the EULA,

Terms of Use - Among Us

Please read this end user license agreement (“EULA”) very carefully. By accessing or using Among Us (the “Site”) and/or downloading/installing the Among Us Software (“Software”), you are agreeing to the...

among-us.io

and that is a standard 'American' license grand, and rest is stipulated to protect the actual IP. We have seen on Steam, where additional Grants are made in terms with Steam's use policy like with library sharing and stream sharing.

Now to look at another EULA,

Eula

Many more loosely applied words to indicate one important aspect to use, to do no harm to their IP image or brand. To what the law extent to in application have more to do with your local law than the law governing the IP.

All the above is okay, because you acquired a license to use, but what happens when you subscribe to a game’s library subscription or cloud gaming subscription, both which are services? Suddenly the EULA is that you signed with the service's provider, and they can dictate the use on their service or available content. I won’t be surprised that Google Stadia is exploring such revenue models, to monetise game streams, with the publishers they have onboarded with.

If anyone took these terms and conditions seriously nobody would buy the games.

It only exists because we all know it's a joke.

 

[My_King]

I did not check the facts:

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

Phrase the question like this: "if a dj buys a CD can they play it commercially without royalties"?

No

"if a streamer buys a game can they play it commercially without royalties"

Also no.

People may dislike what he said, I do too, but he is right...

As for free marketing and exposure how often do creative types say you can't eat or pay rent with exposure?

The status quo right now is the developers allow game streaming, unfortunately this is going to change once the publishers realise that there is money to be made. First step will likely be a cut from YouTube ad revenue and escalate from there.

Rage against it all you want, it's going to happen unfortunately.

EDIT: oh and watch the Tom Scott video on fair use and transformation, it's not what you think it is ie: load up LOTR with you commenting over it to YouTube and see what happens.

 

[Fulcrum29]

If anyone took these terms and conditions seriously nobody would buy the games.

It only exists because we all know it's a joke.

Use licenses are there to protect IPs, it is as simple as that. Without those licenses your competitors will take and rework your IP into their product. The usage is applied in general.

Fair use applies, and this is what Hutchinson ‘proposed’ to impede.

As said, most publishers and developers are protected by their laws, and where laws are bridged via cooperative policing.

Tencent would love to see the game streaming market being monetised by the IP holders because it will boost Trovo with immediate popularity. China doesn’t give a schit about your IP. China gets 'digital' business because users are driven towards them. Ironic really, considering the strict censorship laws.

 

[Datura]

I only play one game and the developers fill content providers' pockets up nicely.

Answer to OP is, no.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Phrase the question like this: "if a dj buys a CD can they play it commercially without royalties"?

No

"if a streamer buys a game can they play it commercially without royalties"

Also no.

People may dislike what he said, I do too, but he is right...

As for free marketing and exposure how often do creative types say you can't eat or pay rent with exposure?

The status quo right now is the developers allow game streaming, unfortunately this is going to change once the publishers realise that there is money to be made. First step will likely be a cut from YouTube ad revenue and escalate from there.

Rage against it all you want, it's going to happen unfortunately.

Music and gaming isn't applied the same as in usage, the user experience. Music is the experience, in gaming, the gameplay is the experience where the publisher/developer has their own licensing in place to enable said gameplay experience. The issue was raised herein, where publisher/developer held a music license which is then distributed via gameplay through the streaming medium and this is how it came to the remarks held by an exec at Google Stadia.

An application is a simple licence, you have a right to install on X amount devices and to use X amount instances, and the rest is governed by Fair Use pending on regional legalisation. This is also the reason publishers/developers had an issue with Nvidia's streaming service because Nvidia allowed their subscription base to install the application (or game) on their devices.

 

[Fulcrum29]

So, this article dated 2019,

How does the games industry solve its problem with music licensing?

Video games have been using licensed music in their soundtracks since the 80s. Midway's 1983 arcade game Journey featur…

www.gamesindustry.biz

How does the games industry solve its problem with music licensing?

Developers risk having their games removed from sale due to expired licenses -- experts from music and games weigh in on the problem

Video games have been using licensed music in their soundtracks since the 80s. Midway's 1983 arcade game Journey featured 8-bit arrangements of the titular band's music, and the 1988 hip-hop track Megablast by Bomb the Bass was the title music for Xenon 2 Megablast on the Amiga.

As video game hardware evolved throughout the 80s and 90s, the technical limitations that had previously limited the use of music in games started to disappear, and the music industry saw a new opportunity. When CD quality audio became a reality, games like Road Rash, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, FIFA and Wip3out demonstrated that video games could be a new format to market music and drive sales.

Today, the relationship between the two industries is mutually beneficial: developers can license popular music to make their games appeal to certain audiences, while musicians benefit from instantaneous exposure to millions of new listeners (and usually a lot of money). It's a healthy relationship, but like all relationships it isn't without problems -- and many of the problems associated with music licenses can cause some games to be removed from sale.

When developers want to feature music by bands and artists in their game, a licensing deal needs to be made. These deals can be very complicated due to a variety of reasons, from the length of the licensing agreement to future releases of video games affecting the original contract. Such issues have affected games such as Obsidian Entertainment's Alpha Protocol and Remedy's Alan Wake, both of which were removed from sale, although Alan Wake appeared back online after its music licenses were renegotiated.

Continued

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...dustry-solve-its-problem-with-music-licensing

This has already, and recently Rockstar had to remove music content which was licensed to their GTA IV title. Some radio stations was even completely removed.

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

the rest is governed by Fair Use

TLDR: it's not

 

[Fulcrum29]

TLDR: it's not

We are coming back to music now, and how it's licensing is applied in distribution. We are talking about gaming, and yes, I did say publishers/developers have their own licensing in place, but this licensing onus shouldn't be placed on the user but on those holding the agreement between the participating parties. I earlier posted two separate EULA's, both with the standard use clause, but with the latter elaborating with a guideline, though both allow streaming.

Here is Ubi's EULA as agreed with Steam users who have entered a license agreement,

END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT

store.steampowered.com

all standard, as with every other EULA. I need to quote this as many people disagree with me whenever I say that you don't own any game,

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED TO YOU, NOT SOLD.

yes, it is in CAPS. Anyway, what is Fair Use, it is a legal guideline, to quote UBI's guideline,

Posting copyrighted Ubisoft material | Ubisoft Help

POSTING COPYRIGHTED UBISOFT MATERIAL

QUESTION:

I would like to stream in-game footage, use it in my video or use copyrighted material of one of your games online. Am I allowed to do that?

ANSWER:

We are happy to have enthusiastic fans who talk about our games, share experiences and create a vibrant culture. We love seeing your fan art and contributions out there.

We do have just a few guidelines that we would ask you to follow when you consider publishing on stream, video or fan websites or creating dynamic walkthroughs, Let’s Plays, Speedruns, reviews or similar things using Ubisoft game content.

NDA: If you have signed a non-disclosure agreement, for example when taking part in a closed beta, you are not allowed to post any content.

Be aware that the upload of gameplay assets in advance of the game’s official release date may result in Ubisoft blocking your content.

Music: Some of the music we use in our games is our own. However, some titles are licensed and owned by the artists. If you post a video with licensed music on a video website, it may result it a copyright strike from the website. To avoid this, we recommend that you turn off the music in the game if you plan to record a gameplay sequence.

You are free to monetize your videos via the YouTube partner program and similar programs on other video sharing sites, unless your videos happen to include copyrighted music that is identified in YouTube’s Content ID system or similar technology on any other site. If you upload a video, you may receive notification stating that the video has been claimed, and therefore monetized, by a music company and additionally, advertisements may appear within or around your video. In most cases, your video will not be blocked and these notifications are only meant to inform you that another entity has wholly monetized this content within the system. Please do not dispute these claims unless you have a direct license from the claim owner. Any other use of our content in videos must be non-commercial.

If your YouTube channel is under an agreement with a Multi-Channel Network (MCN) where the MCN is monetizing on your behalf, please contact the MCN or the music claim owner to ensure that your MCN has an agreement with the music company.

Assets: Please do not take assets from our games (for example voice, music, items) and distribute them separately.

We want to make it clear that we do not condone racist, sexist, homophobic, or offensive content. We reserve the right to remove content we find objectionable, for any reason, on a case by case basis. Also, please keep your videos focused on our games, and away from overtly controversial topics.

Additionally, we would like to ask you not to post any content that could spoil the story to other players. No one likes spoilers, so keep it fair.

In the same spirit we would ask you to not post content that encourages other players to cheat or promotes the use of illegitimate means to gain advantages in the game.

Finally, please do not charge users to view or access your videos. Do not sell or license your videos to others for a payment of any kind.

Of course, this Policy applies only to Ubisoft footage. If music owned by third parties (including the popular music in our games) or other non-Ubisoft content is included in your video, you will need to secure the content owner's permission independently.

and to quote their video policy,

Ubisoft Video Policy

www.ubisoft.com

Ubisoft Video Policy

Using the guidelines below, we encourage you to make creative and dynamic works walkthroughs, Let’s Play, Speedruns, reviews, etc. using Ubisoft game content, and publish to your website, YouTube or similar digital services.

Specifically:

• Do not take assets from our games (e.g. voice, music, items) and distribute them separately.
• Unless you have explicit permission from us, the upload of gameplay assets in advance of the game’s official release date, may result in Ubisoft blocking your content.
• You are free to monetize your videos via the YouTube partner program and similar programs on other video sharing sites, unless your videos happen to include copyrighted music that is identified in YouTube’s Content ID system or similar technology on any other site. If you upload a video, you may receive notification stating that the video has been claimed, and therefore monetized, by a music company and additionally, advertisements may appear within or around your video. In most cases, your video will not be blocked and these notifications are only meant to inform you that another entity has wholly monetized this content within the system. Please do not dispute these claims unless you have a direct license from the claim owner. Any other use of our content in videos must be non-commercial.
• If your YouTube channel is under an agreement with a Multi-Channel Network (MCN) where the MCN is monetizing on your behalf, please contact the MCN or the music claim owner to ensure that your MCN has an agreement with the music company.
• Do not charge users to view or access your videos.
• Do not sell or license your videos to others for a payment of any kind.
• Be cool. Absolutely no racist, sexist, homophobic, or offensive content. We reserve the right to remove content we find objectionable, for any reason, on a case by case basis.
• Please keep your videos focused on our games, and away from overtly controversial topics.
• This Policy applies solely to Ubisoft footage. If music owned by third parties (including the popular music in our games) or other non-Ubisoft content is included in your video, you will need to secure the content owner's permission independently.
• This Policy is meant to allow you to create videos that include your creative spin on our owned content. Therefore simple duplication of our official trailers, TV ads and non-dynamic in-game footage is not in keeping with the spirit of this policy, not authorized and will likely result in the removal of your content. This policy is intended to help foster community and creative expression. Simply duplicating content does neither. You’re better than that.
• Finally, this Policy is not meant to allow you to upload our full game, or even a majority of it to your website. Again, that’s not creative expression, that is bootlegging. We reserve the right to remove content that is only reproducing our games, in whole or in part, on a case by case basis.

Failure to abide by these content guidelines may result in Ubisoft taking action to have your video removed. Ubisoft also reserves the right to change these policies, at any time and for any reason. We will post a notification on the policy page and such change will go into effect within fifteen (15) days.

Tom Scott didn't take these guidelines under consideration in regard to gaming. This cannot apply to every industry, but Ubi unlike Hutchinson don't want their users to compensate them, but simply to regulate the use within good terms because it creates value.

This is what YouTube's Wyatt responded to Stadia's Hutchinson,

https://twitter.com/x/status/1319378835125628928

We believe that Publishers and Creators have a wonderful symbiotic relationship that has allowed a thriving ecosystem to be created. One that has mutually benefited everyone! YT is focused on creating value for Creators, Publishers, & Users. All ships rise when we work together.

Rather than placing the onus on the user, the publisher/developer should provide a mechanism to disable licensed content in a Stream. These mechanisms already exist and have been implemented many a time.

I have a good idea that publishers/developers want to monetise the cloud gaming model. Hutchinson didn't randomly bring this up, I am sure this is being discussed within Stadia and how Google is planning on bringing game streaming into Stadia. Decisions like these, especially by an industry giant, will impact the practice across the board.

 

[Fulcrum29]

BTW, YouTube's copyright system is broken. The appeal system is broken, and there are people with legitimate appeals which goes ignored because YouTube values their bigger channels more so than the smaller channels though the system is supposed to be equal. MCNs are also running rampant without any consequence. A MCN is multi-channel network which is third-party content managers on YouTube who runs it like the wild west, who are adamant on closing down smaller YouTubers. Recently LTT and Adored bumped heads, and because, LTT's MCN claimed Adored's video without it having any legitimate content claim. Well, this is what Linus told the public

All Adored really did was to tell his audience that Nvidia pays Linus money, and then also added that Linus still criticises Nvidia irrespective whether he is paid by them. Obviously, this had the audience on both sides up in a twist which resulted in a Twitter spat which ended in Adored's video being claimed by LTT. All this due to the 3090 not being a Titan.

Anyway, this isn't what Scott's video was about, but YouTube, ignoring copyright, is broken.

 

[Soul Assassin]

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

We are coming back to music now, and how it's licensing is applied in distribution. We are talking about gaming, and yes, I did say publishers/developers have their own licensing in place, but this licensing onus shouldn't be placed on the user but on those holding the agreement between the participating parties. I earlier posted two separate EULA's, both with the standard use clause, but with the latter elaborating with a guideline, though both allow streaming.

Here is Ubi's EULA as agreed with Steam users who have entered a license agreement,

END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT

store.steampowered.com

all standard, as with every other EULA. I need to quote this as many people disagree with me whenever I say that you don't own any game,



yes, it is in CAPS. Anyway, what is Fair Use, it is a legal guideline, to quote UBI's guideline,

Posting copyrighted Ubisoft material | Ubisoft Help

and to quote their video policy,

Ubisoft Video Policy

www.ubisoft.com

Tom Scott didn't take these guidelines under consideration in regard to gaming. This cannot apply to every industry, but Ubi unlike Hutchinson don't want their users to compensate them, but simply to regulate the use within good terms because it creates value.

This is what YouTube's Wyatt responded to Stadia's Hutchinson,

https://twitter.com/x/status/1319378835125628928

Rather than placing the onus on the user, the publisher/developer should provide a mechanism to disable licensed content in a Stream. These mechanisms already exist and have been implemented many a time.

I have a good idea that publishers/developers want to monetise the cloud gaming model. Hutchinson didn't randomly bring this up, I am sure this is being discussed within Stadia and how Google is planning on bringing game streaming into Stadia. Decisions like these, especially by an industry giant, will impact the practice across the board.

And when a publisher removes that from their EULA?

Gameplay is NOT protected by fair use or transformation exceptions in copyright law.

The publishers are allowing the use at the moment, not law. They can stop this at any time and strike all gameplay and they will be fully within their legal rights.

As soon as the publishers figure out how to balance exposure/marketing vs "royalties" without backlash it'll start being enforced.

When this will happen, dunno, but it will happen or at least be tried. Whether you, or I, agree with it. I don't by the way because I quite like watching game streaming and vids.

 

[AlphaJohn]

Anyway, this isn't what Scott's video was about, but YouTube, ignoring copyright, is broken.

Cant agree with you more on that one, esp how publishers don't like you talking bad about their game and hit you with copyright's from their music partners like cough Sony Bmg cough (3 Strikes and you are out) is bad news for us the consumer cause we wont get updates on x broken game or Y's shitty updates.

Add Publisher licences to this and you truly have a tool to censer what you want...

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

If I was a publisher I'd go to YouTube and twitch and anyone streaming my game on a monetised channel has to pay a % of the revenue.

That's probably where they'll start, people will lose their tits however but will likely move on, same as all gamer outrages

 

[AlphaJohn]

If I was a publisher I'd go to YouTube and twitch and anyone streaming my game on a monetised channel has to pay a % of the revenue.

That's probably where they'll start, people will lose their tits however but will likely move on, same as all gamer outrages

Well so far we dont know as it has to be tested in court?

Good right up on the matter https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018...e-streaming-game-videos-exist-in-an-ip-world/

 

[Fulcrum29]

And when a publisher removes that from their EULA?

They cannot simply change your agreement, it isn't a service, it is a right to use. They can, however, change the guideline which governs their Fair Use, but existing content will continue to abide by 'current' terms and laws.

A subscription service's EULA may change, yes.

Gameplay is NOT protected by fair use or transformation exceptions in copyright law.

You are right, but the IP holder can enable it via the above mentioned guideline.

The publishers are allowing the use at the moment, not law. They can stop this at any time and strike all gameplay and they will be fully within their legal rights.

All they will be able to strike is the hosts. The creator (or uploader) made it's content within the terms and laws which applied at that time as current. Here the onus would be on Twitch, YouTube, etc. Like I said in a previous post, Trovo, would love something like this to happen.

As soon as the publishers figure out how to balance exposure/marketing vs "royalties" without backlash it'll start being enforced.

When this will happen, dunno, but it will happen or at least be tried. Whether you, or I, agree with it. I don't by the way because I quite like watching game streaming and vids.

As long as the value proposition exits it won't happen, and even testing the waters may alienate this value proposition in its entirety. Someone may try it, eventually, but doing so without success may sink your ship. It won't be widely adopted without success. I believe the current model is simply too lucrative, and especially indie developers have been rewarded with the growth they couldn't have had otherwise without the streaming community.

It is all about models. I am already alluding to subscription-based services going about this route, why else would Hutchinson even bring it up? I am sure Stadia is exploring this as we speak.

 

[Soul Assassin]

If I was a publisher I'd go to YouTube and twitch and anyone streaming my game on a monetised channel has to pay a % of the revenue.

Congratulations you just killed your player base and alienated a huge audience from supporting anything you do in the future.

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

Congratulations you just killed your player base and alienated a huge audience from supporting anything you do in the future.

Like day one patches

Oh

Like day one dlc

Oh

Like micro transactions

Oh

Like loot boxes

Oh

The big publishers don't give a toss about pissing off players...

Again, I'm not saying it's right or good. However it is legal and will happen at some point.