Game Streaming Platforms and Technology (xCloud, PSNow, GeforceNow, Luna) (Rip: Stadia)

[Shifty Geezer]

Don't internet servers and other infrastructure within the whole pipeline cache data?

I was thinking that, but I don't think they do. the only thing cached are DNS addresses, which can take a while to propagate updates. A download from Steam or MS or Sony should see their servers tapped directly rather than some caches accessed, and we see this is slow downloads when their servers can't cope. If Sony's downloads were cached across ISP, download speeds from the store wouldn't sometime hit tragically slow.

 

[Lurkmass]

Thanks, this cements my argument even more! The ruling does not apply to "owners" or "possessors" meaning consumers who have bought the product and own it. It also does not cover when the consumer pays for "remote storage of content".

Your interpretation is exactly what the judges state how not to interpret the ruling, in other words the judges have not


I suggest we leave the legalese to the lawyers and courts.

GeForce NOW is NOT a service for remote storage of content if that's what you're thinking.

The supreme court justices described and feared exactly what GeForce NOW is which is a service for transmission of copyrighted content.

Nvidia has to get permission from the copyright holders to do this, NOT from an owner of a licensed copy! Owner's of a licensed copy of a work are irrelevant in this case since it deals with the transmission of content.

English is easier than you think it is and the supreme court's ruling can't be made anymore unambiguous. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure out the conclusion or the legal precedent set forth.

Nvidia is breaking legal precedent set by the highest court which applies to ALL copyrighted content.

 

[Kaotik]

The end user has the license to access and play the game. If streaming itself was the issue then it would be a problem for me simply because I play games streamed to my Shield. Publishers aren't going to deny my right to do that. I concur that there only issue I see possibly is the remote use of the game files

The publishers that pulled out did so because they want done kind of commercial contract and thus a piece of the pie. They want money from Nvidia.

Technically user has the license to access and play the game on specific platform, and apparently at least some of the publishers believe using GFN in between means it's not the same platform anymore.

 

[Malo]

Technically user has the license to access and play the game on specific platform, and apparently at least some of the publishers believe using GFN in between means it's not the same platform anymore.

Yep definitely. It's still running on the steam platform, but inside another platform. It's inception gaming!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

GeForce NOW is NOT a service for remote storage of content if that's what you're thinking.

The supreme court justices described and feared exactly what GeForce NOW is which is a service for transmission of copyrighted content.

Again, what's the copyrighted material being transmitted? The transmission is a video feed, not the game code.

 

[Lurkmass]

Again, what's the copyrighted material being transmitted? The transmission is a video feed, not the game code.

A game's assets consists of more than just the code. It includes other data such as the textures and 3D models as well. It's why some publishers were able to make copyright claims for something far less like gameplay footage. Most big publishers only stopped making copyright claims against gameplay footage on video sharing platforms out of mercy, not because the uploaders had a right to share it. Publishers don't have to show Nvidia the same mercy or their cloud streaming platform.

There's a reason why the Copyright Act of 1976 passed with bi-partisan support in congress which exists to give the copyright holders iron fist protections even with new emerging technologies. At the end of the day, copyright holders have ALL of the cards since highest powers are at their side.

 

[milk]

Haven't courts ruled it LEGAL for a game owner to make copies of said game (even creating rom dumps) for the purposes of creating a backup copy, as long as it is for his personal and never commercialized? I heard that multiple times, but never researched official sources nor read the fine print.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Correct.

117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.—Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

 

[upnorthsox]

Haven't courts ruled it LEGAL for a game owner to make copies of said game (even creating rom dumps) for the purposes of creating a backup copy, as long as it is for his personal and never commercialized? I heard that multiple times, but never researched official sources nor read the fine print.

That is not what's happening here though.

 

[Malo]

hmmm, I wonder if (a)(1) could be argued as a legal use of this process by the user. The copy of the game is created by direct action of the end user authenticating in Steam and requesting access to the game they have legal access to and it's used in the intended manner (playing the game).

 

[Lurkmass]

That is not what's happening here though.

Correct, the user can make copies of content for themselves but it does not mean that Nvidia can make copies of content for the public even if it was limited to the users who already own a separate copy as is with the case for GFN. Especially not with GFN being used for commercial purposes. If Nvidia raised the defense of "fair use" it wouldn't pass in the courts since the cloud copy of the game would fail under all four of the factors.

 

[dobwal]

And that service provides you access to the Steam application running on a PC. Simple.

The only valid claim developers have is that Nvidia is caching local copies of game files. If you had to download the game from Steam servers to the machine each time it would literally be a remote desktop situation. If anything this is a Valve and Nvidia issue.

Agreed. There is nothing being done wrong on the user's end. The problem is Nvidia. It pushes GFN as a hardware rental but you are not accessing your library housed on remote hardware under your control. You are accessing a Nvidia curated library with your access being authenticated by Steam.

You download GFN locally. You link it to your Steam account. Click play within the GFN app and the game is streamed to your desktop. In theory, this is probably no different than the yet to be released Xbox or PS streaming services. How many of us subscribe to the ideal that we will be renting hardware from MS or Sony if we make use of their services?

 

[Deleted member 2197]

I really don't know why we are talking about copyright, since that's not the case.

hmmm, I wonder if (a)(1) could be argued as a legal use of this process by the user. The copy of the game is created by direct action of the end user authenticating in Steam and requesting access to the game they have legal access to and it's used in the intended manner (playing the game).

Yes. And also the participating publishers explicitly give Nvidia the right to use the game launchers on the publishers choice of platforms (Steam, Epic, etc...)

 

[Malo]

On a side note, of course the internet warriors are review bombing The Long Dark on Steam after he so publicly pulled it from GFN. All he had to do was not say anything lol

 

[milk]

A game's assets consists of more than just the code. It includes other data such as the textures and 3D models as well. It's why some publishers were able to make copyright claims for something far less like gameplay footage. Most big publishers only stopped making copyright claims against gameplay footage on video sharing platforms out of mercy, not because the uploaders had a right to share it. Publishers don't have to show Nvidia the same mercy or their cloud streaming platform.

There's a reason why the Copyright Act of 1976 passed with bi-partisan support in congress which exists to give the copyright holders iron fist protections even with new emerging technologies. At the end of the day, copyright holders have ALL of the cards since highest powers are at their side.

The difference between a youtube twitch streamer/ youtube gameplay video to Remote gaming is that each video stream is not being broadcasted to multiple different users, but only one who DOES posess ownership of the software being streamed to him because he bought it it freeking steam.
Not a fair comparison.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yeah. Lurkmass needs to stop reference one-to-many examples. This is copyright for private use, not public broadcast. Any copyright argument needs to find solid legislation (universally, not just in the US, because Europe can have different takes on copyrights) stating as such.

 

[milk]

Agreed. There is nothing being done wrong on the user's end. The problem is Nvidia. It pushes GFN as a hardware rental but you are not accessing your library housed on remote hardware under your control. You are accessing a Nvidia curated library with your access being authenticated by Steam.

That's where they digged their own grave.

 

[Malo]

That's where they digged their own grave.

Agreed, and in the end I think their service will consist of whatever games they can get away with or actually have established permission to use.

 

[Lurkmass]

The difference between a youtube twitch streamer/ youtube gameplay video to Remote gaming is that each video stream is not being broadcasted to multiple different users, but only one who DOES posess ownership of the software being streamed to him because he bought it it freeking steam.
Not a fair comparison.

Number of users being broadcasted to is irrelevant to the topic and so are the individual owners of the copy of the content. It is a sole exclusive right for the copyright holder to produce new copies. Nvidia is NOT a copyright holder of any of their hosted content so MUST ask permission from the copyright holder because technically they are creating new copies of their content by streaming it.

Also the moment Nvidia get's access to your copy of the data, they are already committing piracy and are liable for it! Making new copies of content for personal use is ONLY allowed FOR YOUR OWN COPY and it CANNOT be shared with anyone else.

Right here:

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

Is it legal to sell backup copies of computer software (in online auctions or on website)? Is it legal to buy and use a backup copy of software I already own?

No. The Copyright Act does not permit anyone to sell backup copies to third parties separately from the original copy of the software. If you lawfully own a computer program, you may sell or transfer that lawful copy together with a lawfully made backup copy of the software, but you may not sell the backup copy alone.


We have been made aware of websites that are offering to sell “backup” copies of software via download over the Internet or in a custom-burned CD-R format, under the guise that section 117 permits this. Section 117 does NOT permit the sale of backup copies. Again, section 117 does not allow you to sell backup copies to someone else except when such backup copies are sold together with the original lawfully owned copy. It does not allow anyone to solely distribute “backup” copies to the public. In addition to being a violation of the exclusive right of distribution, such activity is also likely to be a violation of the terms of the license to the software. In many cases these sites appear to be a front for distribution of illegal copies, which is copyright infringement. You should be wary of sites that offer to sell you a backup copy.


And if you do buy an illegal backup copy, you will be engaging in copyright infringement if you load that illegal copy onto your computer, i.e., the unauthorized reproduction of the infringing computer program into memory. Lesson: if you want a backup copy of a lawfully owned computer program, back it up yourself.

In conclusion, Nvidia may NOT receive any of your copies of the game and the owners are FORBIDDEN from distributing it to Nvidia UNLESS the owners sell their ORIGINAL LAWFULLY OWNED COPY thereby ultimately forfeiting their right to also access the content.

Short of it is for Nvidia to use your copy of the game for streaming, they'd have to LEGALLY ACQUIRE it from you but you as the subscriber would lose those rights to access your copy of the game since you forfeited ownership to Nvidia. This is specifically what Stadia is trying to avoid by getting permission from the publishers so that they CAN avoid having to acquire their subscribers copy of their games.

 

[Malo]

You signed up to this forum specifically for this thread, not to have a discussion but emphatically state what the "facts" are. Rudely at that.

Can we give this guy a vacay?