"The courts have already said that steaming a narrative game is copyright infringement"
No they haven't. You are straight up lying. But in the off-chance I'm wrong, link the court case. Second, this depends ENTIRELY what country you are from. Not everyone on the planet is American buddy, or subject to crappy American copyrights laws.
Twitch pulled it down because they didn't want to deal with a court case. That's it. Not because of any kind of legal breach. In the same way Youtube removes videos even if they are 100% legal and within Fair Use. It is purely to save money. Nothing more.
"explicitly state you can't stream them in the EULA now"
EULA and other Shrink-wrap agreements aren't law. They are barely even enforceable. For most of Europe they aren't even legally binding. For the US it is a grey area and they would have to prove you not only read the agreement, but actually agreed to it. If you were to take it to court, Nintendo likely wouldn't win. A EULA is essentially a contract. A contract that didn't have any kind of legal professional present, no witnesses, or any kind of proof you even agreed to it. EULAs are largely legally worthless. Their entire purpose is to force people into court, which 99.9999% of people would never do.
"using that content you created to not only give that experience to people who haven't paid you, but to make money for themselves? Ummm ... copyright is a thing to prevent exactly that."
...
"for games like DOTA and CS:GO where no narrative experience is being "stolen" and the only thing on display is the experience the streamer is creating."
You are contradicting yourself, further emphasizing the fact you have no clue what you are talking about. You are creating an arbitrary (and contradictory) distinction between the two purely cover-up your own inconsistancy.
If you consider streaming a "narrative based game" an infringement of copyright, then that means the EXACT SAME THING applies to ALL games. All of them. And music. And pictures. And every single thing you could possibly stream. Why? Because the entire foundation of what you are saying is based on the idea that Streaming copyrighted material (music, art, characters, stories, ideas, voices, etc) falls under copyright protection for sharing content. Which includes the art and music and characters in DOTA. You cannot just say "oh streaming narrative games is copyright, but DOTA isn't". That is contradictory. If one is true, BOTH have to be true to stay logically consistent.
So the question is, do you want people to have the right to stream video games? If the answer is yes, than you should be 100% what Nintendo just did. This is just an exercise on how incredibly antiquated (especially US) copyright laws are. However, some of use understand that this sort of thing is an abuse of copyright. Copyright is supposed to protect works from being duplicated (I.E. video game piracy) in a conservative sense. Not in the most broad and literal sense (Streaming counts of duplication). Going by the literal sense, that would mean taking a photo of your friend that included, say, Zelda in the background and put in on Facebook is copyright. Which is absurd. Do you want to live in that kind of world?
You are just fanboying because it is obvious you haven't really thought about anything you actually said.
Comments 1
Re: Twitch Streamers Banned For Playing Hyrule Warriors: Age Of Calamity
@HeadPirate
You are so wrong it isn't even funny.
"The courts have already said that steaming a narrative game is copyright infringement"
No they haven't. You are straight up lying. But in the off-chance I'm wrong, link the court case. Second, this depends ENTIRELY what country you are from. Not everyone on the planet is American buddy, or subject to crappy American copyrights laws.
Twitch pulled it down because they didn't want to deal with a court case. That's it. Not because of any kind of legal breach. In the same way Youtube removes videos even if they are 100% legal and within Fair Use. It is purely to save money. Nothing more.
"explicitly state you can't stream them in the EULA now"
EULA and other Shrink-wrap agreements aren't law. They are barely even enforceable. For most of Europe they aren't even legally binding. For the US it is a grey area and they would have to prove you not only read the agreement, but actually agreed to it. If you were to take it to court, Nintendo likely wouldn't win. A EULA is essentially a contract. A contract that didn't have any kind of legal professional present, no witnesses, or any kind of proof you even agreed to it. EULAs are largely legally worthless. Their entire purpose is to force people into court, which 99.9999% of people would never do.
"using that content you created to not only give that experience to people who haven't paid you, but to make money for themselves? Ummm ... copyright is a thing to prevent exactly that."
...
"for games like DOTA and CS:GO where no narrative experience is being "stolen" and the only thing on display is the experience the streamer is creating."
You are contradicting yourself, further emphasizing the fact you have no clue what you are talking about. You are creating an arbitrary (and contradictory) distinction between the two purely cover-up your own inconsistancy.
If you consider streaming a "narrative based game" an infringement of copyright, then that means the EXACT SAME THING applies to ALL games. All of them. And music. And pictures. And every single thing you could possibly stream. Why? Because the entire foundation of what you are saying is based on the idea that Streaming copyrighted material (music, art, characters, stories, ideas, voices, etc) falls under copyright protection for sharing content. Which includes the art and music and characters in DOTA. You cannot just say "oh streaming narrative games is copyright, but DOTA isn't". That is contradictory. If one is true, BOTH have to be true to stay logically consistent.
So the question is, do you want people to have the right to stream video games? If the answer is yes, than you should be 100% what Nintendo just did. This is just an exercise on how incredibly antiquated (especially US) copyright laws are. However, some of use understand that this sort of thing is an abuse of copyright. Copyright is supposed to protect works from being duplicated (I.E. video game piracy) in a conservative sense. Not in the most broad and literal sense (Streaming counts of duplication). Going by the literal sense, that would mean taking a photo of your friend that included, say, Zelda in the background and put in on Facebook is copyright. Which is absurd. Do you want to live in that kind of world?
You are just fanboying because it is obvious you haven't really thought about anything you actually said.