Burek on 19 June 2014
| -CraZed- said: I think he might be on to something here. I mean why should we stop at games. Why shouldn't clothing manufacturers (though this may not apply to pr0n), and furniture makers and the makers of anything shown within a video be further compensated after the initial purchase of their items when they are shown on video and the wearer/owner gets paid. Of course the video camera manufacturer wouldn't get paid since it is not shown in the video (unless there are multiple cameras, but then the video maker would only be responsible for those actually in the shot) and neither would the sound equipment manufacturer, except when the boom mic falls into view. This is such nonsense. Video Games are an interactive product meaning the idea is to play them. Streaming your play through of a game you legally purchased is not stealing. It is fair trade. I know a lot of sympathetic gamers love their favorite developers etc. and want to see them get paid but this whole idea that game developers somehow deserve to further reap profits from something they already sold is just silly. This whole knee jerk reaction from some in the development community to try to double dip into their game sales is just going to back fire on them. Don't support this type of anti-consumer bullshit. Phil Fish is a talented game designer but when it comes to treating his consumer base with respect (gamers) he is a talentless hack. |
You are so far away from the truth and the point of the OP.
First, you're confusing manufactured products and intelectual property. They are two different aspects, and even fall into different legal categories.
Secondly, it's not developers that are trying to double dip. It's those youtubers that are dipping into other people's property. Developers are simply trying to either stop them from profiting at all, or let them continue profiting, but oblige them to actually pay the fees they should be paying.
