Apricot

DMCA – the law on copyright protection in the digital era, according to which your creations on the Internet can be deleted if you use other people’s content in them. For example, with the help of this law Nintendo forced to remove the elements from the fan royal battle with Mario Super Mario Bros., And the creators Firewatch запретили PewDiePie стримить их игру после того, как он сказал слово «ниггер».

However, the usual broadcasts of DMCA, as a rule, does not concern. Moreover, the developers sometimes even pay to the streamers for those on the air show their game. However Alex Khatchinson (Alex Hutchinson), Creative Director Typhoon Studios, which last year became part of Stadia, believes that it should be exactly the opposite.

On his Twitter, the head of the cloud gaming service said the following:

Streamers who are worried that their content will be removed for the use of music for which they did not pay are more concerned about the fact that they broadcast games for which they also did not pay. As soon as the publishers slip away, they will not be able to do this.

In fact, streamers must pay developers and publishers of games that they broadcast. They should buy a license, as in any present business, and pay for the content used.

The Real Truth is the Streamers Shoup Be Paying the Developers and Publishers of the Games They Stream. They SHOULD BE BUYING A LICENSE Like Any Real Business and Paying for the Content they Use.

– Alex Hutchinson (@bangbangclick) October 22, 2020

Most of the time the game just helps Streamer. People tune in to watch their “show”, based on content for which they did not pay. If their show requires game content, then the percentage of their income should go to the game used.

If they think that they do not need to pay for the game they use, they can arrange a show without using the games and see what will come of it.

If the Think They Don’T Need to Pay for the Game They’re Using They Can Make A Show Without Games and See How It Goes.

– Alex Hutchinson (@bangbangclick) October 22, 2020

It surprises me that people are unhappy when someone says that the creators of the content should be allowed to earn some of the money on other people using their content in order to make a profit.

Amazing to ME THAT PEOPLE ARA UPSET at Someone Saying that Creators of Content SHOULD BeLowed to Make Some of the Money From Other Conther Content for Profit for Profit for Profit for Profit for Profit For.

– Alex Hutchinson (@bangbangclick) October 22, 2020

October 22, 2020 videos on how two reality works in the horror of The Medium

October 22, 2020 List of languages ​​in the Cyberpunk 2077 console, which will be available in different regions

The best comments

They are given free advertising, and they also complain. Someone would not be this person, a marketer from him is very like that.

Personally, I, without a console, passed so TLOU2 and The Order 1886.

No, you didn’t pass them. You looked https://nongamstopcasinosites.co.uk/review/slots-amigo/ at how the other person passes them. And it is sad that you do not see the difference in this.

Ku-ku! They went completely from greed?

But nothing that they are worried, and even investing their 60-70 $ advertise the game?

And how much profit they did not read without releasing the game on all platforms? And how much profit they are not read from the secondary market.

You are very deeply mistaken. Look at Apex Legends, Fall Guys or Among US. Streams still sell games. Yes, the streamer itself is more important than the game, but where is the flaw itself with logic then? Actors are removed in advertising of various products. If it were not feasible, they would not be hired.

I understand what you want to say, only the audience can be divided into a lot of different groups. And practice has long shown that streams are still “working” for a certain audience.

I personally recently bought Phasmophobia with my friends, just because of different streamers.UPD: And the whole Batterale genre "grew up" on streams.

Prohibit! All prohibit! Only advertising should remain in our creations, and also a donation, more advertising and even more donat! Oh yes, you can still charge a fee so that you are let into the final part of the game, you don’t pay for – you won’t pass! And as you wanted, you have to pay for everything! And the finale of the game, this is also like our intellectual property!

By this logic, when you watch porn = have sex.

What a cool thread turned out on Twitter. Highly recommend! Comments are divine.

"See at the streamer and do not pay"

"I, without a console, went like this"

In fact, where does such a conclusion come from?!

If the streams had not worked as advertising, no one would have ordered sponsor streams for a long time, would not provide streamers with keys (moreover with early access), and would not organize affiliate programs. What is there, streamers are sponsored by many organizations that have an indirect attitude to the games (for example, iron manufacturers), or do not have at all (for example, manufacturers of energy drinks or coffee). That is, even a dick under Stream is beneficial with a reference to a purchase with some kind of promotional code (and this is taking into account the fact that few people go to the stream, say, for the ads of Red Bull). What to talk about the game, which is actually on Stream.

Bringing to the point of absurdity, maybe it’s better not to go out on the Internet at all on the Internet? Content everywhere, for which, allegedly, underpaid.

Conditionally, you see a dress on a window – pay for a look and measure, otherwise the designer and seam. For free, whether to take a walk and stare, while people sewing from their pockets here, they pay for delivery and rental?
The film trailer is to pay, because these are pieces of the project that people made for money.

And God forbid to share with someone an opinion, to dissuade a potential buyer, the missed profit of the creators after all.

Developers: Stream our games, you can even ask us permission, here’s the option “for streamers”, turning off music, hey streamers, do not want to become a character in our game?

Random hell from the mountain: Wait a minute!

Vasyan from the district can play a conditional counter-string and have 0 spectators on Twich, while Shraud, who has been puffing on Twich for a year, has hundreds of thousands of spectators

I hope that someday people will understand that to be a showman and attract the people and, moreover, to hold attention to themselves-the skill is very rare

Well, if you reason logically, I bought a streamer, I already paid money for it. Then, using this game, he makes content using the game as a tool. And already for this content receives money. If a carpenter buys a hammer and with it produces, say, a chair, he does not pay part of the profit to producers of hammers, he simply used their products as a tool. On the other hand, the game was initially not positioned by the developer as a tool (unlike a young man), he suggested that they would play the game, and not earn with its help. I think that in the end, they will simply add a couple of dashings in user agreements.

I remembered the bike about Khojau Nasrreddin, where he paid for the poor. When the owner of the bench began to demand a fee for the smell that the poor man sniffed to raise his appetite, then Khoja simply shocked his wallet, “paying” with the ringing of coins.

Creative Director of Stadia: Streamers must pay developers for broadcasting games

There are still questions why Stadia garbage? XD

How can you listen to the disk dishewlted by you with music at home in the country – this is completely your right. But to listen and broadcast it in the city at a mass event or in your restaurant – this is not your right, t.To. The songs are licensed there.

These are completely different types of content according to the consumption method. You buy music to listen to it. Including it somewhere in the city, you give others the same thing-the opportunity to listen to music. But when you buy a game, play it and string it, you do not give others the opportunity to play the game, only watch how you play.

Come on such an analogy – you order a dish. But before you eat, let others smell the aroma of this dish. Technically, this gives them a certain experience that gives an idea of ​​what food tastes, but not the very food itself. Does this mean that the restaurant should require you to buy a special license so that others sniff your food? Despite the fact that any of the sniffers may want to order this dish and himself.

Well, this is such a problem of sarcasm-it is problematic to recognize. Intonation is not transmitted by the text, but to calculate that “I said so obviously a silly thing that it cannot but be sarcasm” for a long time – there is always a person ready to carry total nonsense in complete seriousness.

So sarcasm is good, but on the letter it is better to hide behind a sign and immediately at the statement.