Hunter5024's forum posts

#1 Posted by Hunter5024 (6447 posts) -

@hailinel: I disagree, I think a solid case could be made for how much a player influences the end video product. When the courts finally do define this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they rule that streamers are entitled to some percentage of that ad revenue. They would never rule that a movie streamer is entitled to his profits.

#2 Posted by Hunter5024 (6447 posts) -

I love Rian Johnson! In fact I find this news a little disappointing because I'd rather see him make his own stuff than see him work in other people's universes. I also worry that if there's not a consistent creative lead that a lot of the big decisions for this series will be left to other people. Like suits.

#3 Edited by Hunter5024 (6447 posts) -

@hailinel: Yes this is about intellectual property and copyrights. And how they apply to interactive products. The rules regarding intellectual property and copyrights were not written to account for interactivity, and as we further define these laws we need to account for these differences.

#4 Posted by Hunter5024 (6447 posts) -

@hailinel: No I totally understand, I'm just saying it's a bad analogy, because they're not comparable products. The NFL's product is videos of football that are meant to be watched. If you stream their product, people can watch it, which effectively means you are giving it to them for free. Capcom's product is an interactive fighting game meant to be played. If you stream their product, people cannot play it. The product loses a key part of its functionality. So it's not the same at all. Because of these obvious differences we cannot apply the rules established by other mediums to this one.

#5 Posted by Hunter5024 (6447 posts) -

@hailinel: Okay well this brings me back to this same point: the creator of football and the owners of NFL are totally different people. So yes, if esports worked like football, the money wouldn't go to the players, but it wouldn't go to the creators either, it would go to the people producing videos of the game. Like streamers. However as you pointed out, video games are a product that you can sell, and football is not. Which just proves that we've created a terrible analogy.

#6 Edited by Hunter5024 (6447 posts) -

@turboman: I'm not saying that the video isn't infringing upon their copyrights, I'm saying it's a gray area that needs to be further defined. I just think that applying the rules established by other mediums to this one will lead us down a risky path that no one will benefit from.

@hailinel: If you weren't bringing up football for the interactivity of the sport then why were you bringing it up at all? This brings us right back to the beginning of the argument, so let's start over.

The NFL comparison holds no water. The NFL is made to be watched. Games are made to be played. You can watch a stream. You cannot play a stream (yet).

#7 Posted by Hunter5024 (6447 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@hunter5024 said:

@hailinel said:

Here's another thing to consider. When Major League Baseball, the NFL, or other sports leagues broadcast their games on TV, there's always a notice at some point during the broadcast that the footage of that broadcast is the property of the league. Not the property of the players on the field, or the teams. It is property of the league itself. If we were to apply that analogy to E-Sports, then footage of Street Fighter IV tournaments would be property of Capcom, because Capcom, as the producer of the game, would effectively be the league. If it were a Smash Bros. tournament, it would be property of Nintendo. If it were League of Legends, it would be Riot.

The NFL didn't invent football, they just use the game to make money. In your analogy the NFL should actually be the streamer, not the game company.

Nintendo didn't invent video games, they just use games to make money.

As someone with so many wiki points, I'm certain you know the difference between Game and Concept. Football is a specific game, it has a creator, and that creator does not profit off of people who use his game to make money. If I wanted to start a football league, I wouldn't have to pay the NFL or the creator of football, I could just do it.

#8 Posted by Hunter5024 (6447 posts) -

@turboman: Like I said earlier, I don't have any opinion about whose entitled to this money, all I'm saying is that it's a poor comparison. I agree that the video you showed is a perfect example of someone abusing another person's product for their own financial gain. That being said, regardless of how little the player added to the experience of watching it, the video is still a distinct product from The Last of Us. Watching that video doesn't give you the ability to play The Last of Us, to explore the world, to shoot Clickers, it lets you watch someone else do that. An uploaded video of Pacific Rim on the other hand is not a distinct product, it's still just Pacific Rim.

I just think making the comparison between video games and films is unwise, because they're different mediums, and we need to set different standards to reflect that. Films had to establish their own laws for this problem, video games should do the same, they shouldn't adopt the laws made for a completely different format.

@hailinel said:

Here's another thing to consider. When Major League Baseball, the NFL, or other sports leagues broadcast their games on TV, there's always a notice at some point during the broadcast that the footage of that broadcast is the property of the league. Not the property of the players on the field, or the teams. It is property of the league itself. If we were to apply that analogy to E-Sports, then footage of Street Fighter IV tournaments would be property of Capcom, because Capcom, as the producer of the game, would effectively be the league. If it were a Smash Bros. tournament, it would be property of Nintendo. If it were League of Legends, it would be Riot.

The NFL didn't invent football, they just use the game to make money. In your analogy the NFL should actually be the streamer, not the game company.

#9 Posted by Hunter5024 (6447 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@hunter5024 said:

The movie comparison holds no water. Movies are made to be watched. Games are made to be played. You can watch a stream. You cannot play a stream (yet).

Twitch Plays Pokemon would disagree with you. That being said, it's still making money off of intellectual property that is owned by another party. Interactivity has nothing to do with this argument.

Yes I suppose there is Twitch Plays Pokemon. That's a weird anomaly though. And while I don't really care where this money ends up going, I think interactivity is a key part of this discussion. The creators of ip have nothing to do with the way you play a game. That is a creation all your own. People don't watch speed runners or e-athletes (or whatever the hell they're called) because of the intellectual property, they watch it because of the talent of the person playing. That's the players work, and companies reaping the profits of that work are no better than players who make money using the companies creations.

#10 Edited by Hunter5024 (6447 posts) -

The movie comparison holds no water. Movies are made to be watched. Games are made to be played. You can watch a stream. You cannot play a stream (yet).