The right to stream
That is the idea raised by Alex Hutchinson, the creative director of SG&E Montreal Studio (one of the Google Stadia studios), who through a tweet showed his astonishment to discover that many streamers were really offended when their uploaded videos are canceled for musical copyright rights.
The real truth is the streamers should 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
Hutchinson assured that streamers should open their eyes, since, according to him, these contents generate income using materials for which they have not paid for them. In short, they protest when they use music without rights, but they still make money making video games for what they have not paid for it. Do you agree?
As expected, the gaming community was quick to jump on top of the creative, ensuring they would have all the right in the world to do what they wanted with a game that they had previously paid for, so it would not make any sense to have to pay this strange rate proposed by Hutchinson.
Idk maybe you’re getting flak because you’re picking this particular battle in a world where C-suite executives make $ 30m / year and devs don’t get royalties so they’d never see any of that streaming money in the first place
– Jason Schreier (@jasonschreier) October 22, 2020
As if that were not enough, some important figures in the industry, such as journalist Jason Schreier, responded with a simple approach, and it is that if that rate were applied, precisely the developers that Hutchinson defends would not see any penny, so that everything would fall back where it always has: to those who earn the most.
Not good publicity for Stadia
The launch of Stadia ended up being pretty decaf. Google’s proposal has not finished convincing the public, and not because of its performance, but rather because of the approach. Paying for each game that we want to play remotely in addition to having to pay a monthly fee to access the service is not a particularly tempting offer having such comprehensive proposals as Xbox Game Pass or PlayStation Now, so these types of statements do a disservice service.
Therefore, it is not surprising that Google has wanted to step aside and separate from these statements, since through a statement sent to 9to5Google, the company assures that the opinions of the creative director do not represent the ideals of the company or its affiliates YouTube or Google Stadia.
Obligatory payment goes wrong
This idea of paying to stream is not inevitably reminiscent of the tax applied in UK for linking news from information media to Google News. This caused the closure of the service in UK, since it was a completely harmful measure, not only for the service, but also for the user.
Taking this fact into account, applying a rate to streams would be a measure of the same type, and would affect the freedom of published content, which is basically the success of the freshness and originality that characterize this type of content.