Sims 4 Updates To Include ‘Safe To Stream’ Setting Because Copyright Is Broken
from the treating-the-symptoms dept
It’s been a decade or so since one of the silliest ways to combat the symptom of a broken copyright system came to be: safe streaming settings in video games. Because of the way licensing works for the musical compositions in video games, and because some games include mainstream music a la Grand Theft Auto, special settings have to be put in the menu of these games that prevent copyrighted music from being played while game-streamers do their thing. The whole thing is quite silly, since there can’t possibly be anyone at all that believes that listening to a let’s play video game stream that includes copyrighted music somehow replaces anyone’s impetus to buy that music elsewhere. It’s just part of the game that comes along for the ride.
But like I said, it’s been a decade of this, and apparently there are enough of us that are cool with the status quo, since EA just updated The Sims 4 with this same safe to stream setting. Notably, this is a game that came out ten years ago and just got this setting.
If you go into the the Music section of Game Options, you’ll now see a “Safe for Steaming” toggle that allows you to play only the music that’s safe for streaming.
TikToker @jeremy_gonewild explains the update thusly: “This blocks copyrighted music from playing on your Sims radio when they listen to the radio.”
But, Jeremy cautions, “This isn’t about build mode music, or the Create-A-Sim music, that stuff is fine. This is preventing a Simlish version of Last Friday Night by Katy Perry from coming on your Sims radio while you’re livestreaming, earning you a copyright strike.”
The game allows for this kind of music to be played in game, but the moment it’s done as part of a let’s play stream it suddenly becomes a problem. And while that’s all technically true as a matter of current copyright laws, what is most useful in this for our purposes is to highlight how absurd this all is. If a streamer of this game happens to have some copyrighted music playing in the background… who gets harmed? Is a musician really losing a sale due to a video game stream? Are viewers of the stream going to refuse to listen to the song on some other streaming service?
Or is it actually more likely that some music will be discovered by a new generation via video game streams like this? Especially because these “simlish” versions of mainstream songs that were introduced into the game were done so with the expressed purpose of promoting the artists and giving them more visibility.
you’ll notice quite a difference between songs that are copyright approved. You’ll notice all of the in-game original Sims music—including those composed by Mark Mothersbaugh—are free to use in streaming mode.
While your sims won’t be having a Brat Summer during a live stream anytime soon, you’ll no need to worry about your Sims live stream being rudely interrupted because of the man!
Cute, but ultimately not all that funny. It’s just too bad we have to navigate this sort of thing with workarounds rather than creating a more sane copyright system.
Filed Under: copyright, safe for streaming, the sims
Companies: ea, youtube
Comments on “Sims 4 Updates To Include ‘Safe To Stream’ Setting Because Copyright Is Broken”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
It’s been a decade or so since one of the silliest ways to combat the symptom of a broken copyright system came to be: safe streaming settings in video games. Because of the way licensing works for the musical compositions in video games, and because some games include mainstream music a la Grand Theft Auto, special settings have to be put in the menu of these games that prevent copyrighted music from being played while game-streamers do their thing. The whole thing is quite silly, since there can’t possibly be anyone at all that believes that listening to a let’s play video game stream that includes copyrighted music somehow replaces anyone’s impetus to buy that music elsewhere. It’s just part of the game that comes along for the ride.
Re:
Since the entirety of your comment is text stolen from the body of the blog, you too are in violation of copyright.
I could go into detail, but your post – and mine – will be hidden, soon.
Re: Re:
Copying is not theft. But, anyway, you’re talking to a spam bot; the spam is in the “user link” field.
Re:
If you look at the intention of copyright in the US Constitution, you’ll find that our current regime pretty much flies in its face wholesale.
Re:
I couldn’t care less if maximalists want to kill one of the best adverts for their music in modern times. Fuck ’em.
No, such settings do not “have to” be put in, and copyrighted or “mainstream” music does not inherently have to be avoided. The game-makers bear some responsibility, too (nevermind their own restrictive copyright policies); they negotiated for the rights, and they could have required all songs to be licensed for game-streaming.
I imagine the lawyers for some big bands would have passed, and the bands they represent might or might not have been happy about that. But some good bands would agree (especially if they’re fans of the previous 3 entries in the series), probably resulting in more than enough music to fill the game. It’s free publicity, right? Music companies used to pay (illegally) to get their stuff on the radio.
Re:
Your mistake here is assuming that the IP lawyers trawling the intertubes for anyone they can threaten are willing to distinguish between “games where the music has a streaming license” and “games where the music doesn’t”. And that’s before you consider stuff like ContentID which is even less likely to distinguish.
Re: Re:
Hypothetically, the license could have penalties for false claims. But if the game-maker is really concerned about such things, maybe they need to look for music that doesn’t come with “IP lawyers”, and accept that it’s not gonna be “mainstream”.
Re: Re: Re:
See, there’s your problem – assuming that there’d be any interest by rightsholders to include any penalties or punishments for false claims.
Copyright brunchlords believe that as soon as you start making it even slightly inconvenient for copyright enforcement, it opens the floodgates. They will never agree to anything that makes it easier for their bullshit claims to be challenged.
Re: Re: Re:2
What does “rightsholders” mean in this context? As others have pointed out, copyright is not optional; that makes pretty much everyone a “rightsholder”.
Are you suggesting that EA, as a “copyright brunchlord”, would not want to be seen as doing anything “against” copyright and for their users? But they already did, with the setting to avoid copyrighted music—specifically to help those trying to stream their copyrighted game. Any music licensing would be on their terms, as long as they could find a good number of bands to accept those.
Re: Re: Re:3
These days? Odds are good that the rightsholder isn’t even the original content creator, evidenced by the artists who get DMCAed for posting their own music online.
You seem to be new to EA’s reputation, here. EA is notorious for being one of the most consumer-unfriendly companies out there. When they do things that are consumer friendly, it’s a happy coincidence, not something from design.
And yet, here we are precisely because the agreements were evidently not enough to satisfy rightsholders (again, rightsholders – not the musicians who originally created the music).
Re:
That’s literally impossible, due to the nature of copyright. Even if they licensed the major labels, there would be no agreement between them and indie labels, international labels and just random people. Copyright is automatic, which means you could get a licence for everything ever recorded (impossible, by the way, due to orphaned works), and then I could create a new copyrighted tune that wasn’t in the licence.
But, their music would still be copyrighted, unless they made it public domain, in which case anyone could use it, not just the guys who paid them for this game.
They also used to understand that a lot of their fans would tape the songs off the radio and not pay a dime until they were old enough to buy merch and concert tickets.
Re: Re:
By “all songs”, of course I meant “all songs to appear in the game we’re talking about”.
We’re talking about a game published by Electronic Arts here. They’re not lacking for legal representation, and yet they made deals that allow them to put songs in the game, but do not allow fans to distribute those songs in connection with gameplay videos.
I’m not sure why that’s a “but”. EA could’ve secured limited sublicensing rights for the music they used, to allow their users to share game recordings. Such things aren’t even rare; if you want to contribute code to an MIT-licensed software project, for example, you’ll have to grant royalty-free sublicensing rights. And unless EA’s lawyers are idiots, all the bands who wanted their songs in the Sims 4 will have had to grant worldwide distribution rights for this game, and re-releases of it, and probably television commercials about it.
Alternately, sure, they could’ve required musicians to put their music in the public domain. So what? With a sufficiently large dump truck full of money, I think they could make that happen.
Re: Re: Re:
What fan is distributing a song by means of a gameplay video? This is something that has been constantly cited as a threat to the music industry but with close to no shred of proof or evidence. You guys seriously think that low-fidelity gameplay footage with ingame sound effects and streamers talking to chat is the seamless piracy engine that Dorito-crusted gamers are using to undermine your meal ticket?
See, this is where we’re getting into pre-crime territory. Nobody can predict ahead of time when Team Copyright suddenly decides they’re owed more money, or want to change the terms of the deal. They’ve campaigned for blank media levies on all storage media just in case their copyrighted content makes it onto a CD-R. They’ve facilitated lawsuits for Marvin Gaye’s estate to sue everyone from Joe Nobody to Ed Sheeran over simple chord progressions. Now you want sub-licences on top of licences which were themselves sub-licences on top of other licences. What’s next? Do I need to pay more for my electricity in case my neighbor uses their computer to start running a tech support call center scam?
Samuel Abram aside I don’t think anyone else these days automatically surrenders their music to the public domain. Most musicians have their rights held by larger companies, and I don’t see those entities being any more favorable towards the public domain option. Never mind that something being in the public domain is, itself, not a protection from being sued over its usage, or that something suddenly being taken out of the public domain either.
If 'I heard it in a game' is enough to LOSE a sale... your music might just suck
No-one ever: You know, I was going to check out that musician I just learned about/was reminded of thanks to that game/video/movie and assuming it was an option see about buying the song or even maybe the album it’s on but hearing bits and pieces of it as background music in passing and mixed in with other sounds is plenty so I’ll just play the game/watch the video whenever I want to listen to it instead.
The Simlish versions of pop songs should be considered as parodies. Replacing the lyrics of a song with obvious nonsense is a commentary on how much sense the original lyrics made.
In the UK...
There’s an old version of this. A local tennis club has a clubhouse where people sometimes meet to play bridge or drink wine…and they pay a licensing fee to the Performing Rights Society every year just in case someone turns on a radio and it’s playing music.
wg
I couldn’t care less if maximalists want to kill one of the best adverts for their music in modern times. Fuck ’em.
Re:
But they’re bringing down independent music with them: the setting apparently blocks all copyrighted music, even permissively licensed stuff. And, in general, people are reluctant to invest money in music-related businesses, knowing they’ll have to deal with these assholes.
Re: Re:
Solution: YouTuber puts the CC-licensed stuff back into the vid (possibly by recording through the analog hole) and includes a list of those tracks in the information. Everything’s got a workaround now, and that would be one of the least headache-inducing.
Re: Re: Re:
A workaround is not a solution. Yes, a YouTuber who wants to promote CC-licensed music can do so. But the “must avoid copyrighted music at all costs” viewpoint still persists in YouTube and in wider society, to the detriment of non-maximalists.
(Well, if that turns into abolitionism, it may be to our longer-term advantage.)
Re: Re: Re:2
ORLY? Flagged for inaccuracy and doomerism.
Re:
This is the problem. Under modern rules, everything is copyrighted when you record it. So, unless you make everything CC or public domain (which most won’t do), you’re under the same rules as Eminem or Springsteen.
Re: Re:
Not necessarily. This fanfic author has a standard copyright notice tweaked to include a license that allows for copying not excepted under copyright law, therefore not under the same rules as Eminem or Springsteen, and they haven’t used a CC license to do that.
“since there can’t possibly be anyone at all that believes that listening to a let’s play video game stream that includes copyrighted music somehow replaces anyone’s impetus to buy that music elsewhere”
Other Tim, I thought you had met IP maximalists.
Re:
It’s not quite the same thing, but I’ve heard people say that repeatedly hearing the same song over and over in a game made them sick of it.
That was a long time ago, though; storage space was much more limited, and there wasn’t necessarily enough CPU power to decompress music. I imagine one can pack in enough music to avoid that problem now.
I think I’m starting a new company that does nothing but submit bogus DMCA violations for companies’ own videos.
There is evidently zero penalty for just rubber stamping any old thing as infringing, and in most cases, the harm is already done by the time entities like Youtube, who could not care less, get around to telling you that your appeal was denied, but they are unable to share any reasons for that, so have a great day!
Its ridiculous that a streaming mode is needed but when copyright law was created streaming did not exist ,also ai did not exist it’s possible that all voice over artists could be replaced by ai unions will have to negotiate with companys to stop their
voices being used by ai programs in games or movies .many gamers learned of new bands by playing games like GTA or rock band .no one is watching streaming games instead of buying
Music on streaming music
Seems similar to the dancing baby case.
‘Dancing Baby’ Wins Copyright Case
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/14/440363919/dancing-baby-wins-copyright-case