copyright
Is it legal to create an app, that &quot;streams&quot; a specific game from a website?
<p>It's hard to tell what I mean in just one sentence. For example: If I would create a mobile JnR-App, with Super Mario Textures, Nintendo can sue me. But now, for another example let's take "Gravity Guy" by Miniclip. There is no mobile app for the current operating systems, last time it has been updated 6 years ago and now you can't play it on newer phones. But you still can play the game at their Website for free.</p>

<p>Now what if I create an Application, that uses a web-browser engine to "stream" the game, so you can play it. The website gets cut off, only the game is visible. Could Miniclip sue me for that?</p>

<p>I don't talk about other things like a name for the app. If I would call it "Gravity Guy", they can sue me, I mean the specific scenario "The app connects to Miniclip and opens the game in fullscreen, so I can play it". While connecting and opening, the user only sees a Loading-screen</p>

<p>EDIT: With streaming, I just mean that a javascript game you normally have in your browser gets displayed in fullscreen on your phone. The game is not by me, but as the app is just a browser for it, it shouldn't be illegal I think</p>

<p>That's an interesting question.  You want to set up a business that essentially combines three different concepts: </p>

<ul>
<li>Network streaming from your PC to a different screen across the network using remote screen software; e.g. <a href="https://parsecgaming.com/features/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Parsec</a>, or a Chromecast, e.g. playing a PC-only game on your iPad, which I've done. </li>
<li>Basically <a href="https://lg.io/2015/07/05/revised-and-much-faster-run-your-own-highend-cloud-gaming-service-on-ec2.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AWS</a>: Renting a dedicated server, racked in a server room far, far away, and remote-screening off that server.  AND, time-sharing the dedicated server; i.e. the server is dedicated to you <em>while you are using it</em>, and an hour later your environment may be boxed, and the actual iron allocated to someone else.</li>
</ul>

<p>So in principle, you'd have an array of racks and racks of dedicated PCs, all headless or blades.  They'd all be preloaded with a standard image, with a virgin (un-customered) Steam, GoG, Battle.net etc. etc.   Customer would </p>

<ol>
<li>Lease a dedicated PC from you, and you'd grab one out of the pool of available PCs.</li>
<li>Remotely controlling it (a-la Parsec): Launch Steam etc., log into <em>their</em> account. </li>
<li>Install a game on it. </li>
<li>Play the game as long as they liked. </li>
<li>Quit playing and log out. </li>
<li>You'd wipe the PC's disk and return it to the pool.  </li>
</ol>

<p>I'm with you so far. (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/cloudygamer/comments/cmi5wa/anybody_homestreaming_world_of_warcraft/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Blizzard isn't</a>). </p>

<p>Where you might get in trouble is you try to <em>also</em> combine this idea with <a href="https://www.gamefly.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">GameFly</a>. Remember when Netflix was DVDs showing up in your mail, and you'd stick them in the pouch, mail it back, and the next one would automatically show up?  That's the classic video rental model. The video store pays once for the tape ($89 for a VHS tape back in the day) and doesn't pay per-rental.  Parallel to Old Netflix was a service called GameFly, that still exists (as does Old Netflix).  So I suppose the next shoe to drop is that if your user wants to play a DVD-based console game, "an elf in your warehouse" will (in a few seconds) grab one of your stock copies and drop it in the DVD slot, right?  (except the elf, and the DVD slot, will be virtualized.)  <em>Now you better watch out</em>.  </p>

<hr>

<p>The case to pay heed to is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Aereo</a>.  Aereo was a public-policy advocacy litigation firm; they just didn't know it.  They thought they were an Internet streaming company offering streaming and time-shifting of over-the-air TV to people in the NYC service area). </p>

<p>NYC citizens have trouble with TV reception because of all the steel buildings.  Aereo <em>already knew</em> it would be illegal to just have one well-placed antenna and stream to everybody.  So they had a well-placed warehouse with <em>thousands</em> of antennas, each connected to a PC with a DVR. So <strong>each customer would get a dedicated antenna and PC/DVR</strong>.  And I thought that settled the matter; but they finally got in front of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court said "<strong>Nope, the clever technology implementation does NOT negate the obvious intent of Congress, in requiring cable companies to pay TV stations for the right to rebroadcast their stations</strong>.  It looks, walks and quacks like a cable TV operation, so we're treating it like that for the law."  Their house of cards immediately collapsed <em>because they now owed years of back fees to all the TV stations they were streaming</em>, and that broke their back.  </p>
