|
On January 25 2018 01:52 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2018 01:50 SKC wrote:On January 25 2018 01:47 Sn0_Man wrote:
It's owned by valve that's why they can write the statement that they did and it's why ESL have no grounds to do what they are doing. If it's owned by Valve, issuing a DMCA even if BTS restreamed it should obviously be wrong. I don't get how you can issue a DMCA of something you don't own. No matter what the wording was in the statement. This is some Kespa vs Blizzard shit though. Because DMCA puts literally no onus or burden on the rights claimant, and while filing a counter-claim constitutes an agreement to evaluate the case in a court of law, filing the actual claim entails no such thing. It's just your average incredibly terrible piece of american law.
You are allowed you defense yourself to a DMCA claim, just like all other claims. Twitch or Youtube could fight with anyone making that claim if they wanted. The DMCA claim is made against them, not the streamer. Youtube and Twitch then take down the content because they are not going to bat for the streamer. Because why?
Host your own shit on your own server and you can litigate and enjoy due process like everyone else. Use youtube/twitch, enjoy feudalism and live under the rules of the land they own.
Side note: the who “streaming a video game and talking over it” is completely untested in relation to Fair Use. Most attorneys who know the law think it is a good case for Fair Use, but the courts are silent on the subject due to a lack of real litigation being appealed to the federal courts. No one should act like it is a sure thing, because we have no idea how that ruling would come down.
|
yeah but p6 the point is the only possible person who could own the rights to the video game is... the video game maker who owns the rights to the video game. So valve. So not ESL.
Now ESL's broadcast is totally different of course, but nobody is restreaming ESL's broadcast.
Side note: I'm really surprised that we haven't seen more organization/tournament channels brought down by bogus or at least very weak DMCA claims.
|
Not directly related to this, but what happened to paid tournament tickets? Not sure if all tickets are free nowadays or what the situation is but that has been the case in most events I've tried downloading replays from. I feel like one problem with monetization is that for a number of people it's not clear that the official stream is the superior product. Some prefer to watch ingame and can do it for free, some prefer their favorite streamer to commentate the games and they often can do so via dotatv. Ideally there would be some way the tournament organizer could control the ingame experience to an extent and put content (that isn't just some hats unrelated to the event) behind the ticket to make it worth buying.
|
Would be really interesting if someone threw money away at a counter claim just to settle this kind of shit. People waste money on worse.
On January 25 2018 02:07 spudde123 wrote:
Not directly related to this, but what happened to paid tournament tickets? Not sure if all tickets are free nowadays or what the situation is but that has been the case in most events I've tried downloading replays from. I feel like one problem with monetization is that for a number of people it's not clear that the official stream is the superior product. Some prefer to watch ingame and can do it for free, some prefer their favorite streamer to commentate the games and they often can do so via dotatv. Ideally there would be some way the tournament organizer could control the ingame experience in some way and put content (that isn't just some hats unrelated to the event) behind the ticket to make it worth buying.
They died because it was a really bad system. Without any bonus, noone cared enough to buy them. So it became a contest on which tournament could bundle the best hats with the ticket.
Plus Valve probally likes the idea of Majors and Minors being viable by everyone ingame like TI.
|
On January 25 2018 02:05 Sn0_Man wrote:
yeah but p6 the point is the only possible person who could own the rights to the video game is... the video game maker who owns the rights to the video game. So valve. So not ESL.
Now ESL's broadcast is totally different of course, but nobody is restreaming ESL's broadcast.
Side note: I'm really surprised that we haven't seen more organization/tournament channels brought down by bogus or at least very weak DMCA claims.
I would not be surprised if Twitch has a white list of channels that they don’t take immediate action on DMCA claims to avoid that.
On January 25 2018 02:07 SKC wrote:
Would be really interesting if someone threw money away at a counter claim just to settle this kind of shit. People waste money on worse.
I have zero confidence in a jury to settle that case in favor of the streamers and even less in a bench trial. I don't think it would destroy all video game streaming, but it would make it all way more complicated.
And if it happened, it would be the two most petulant and arrogant Plaintiff and Defendants. No one who has been involved with any litigation takes shit to trial in a case like that.
|
The discussion would be about who owns DotaTV material. If Valve claimed they did, there is absolutelly no way ESL would have a valid claim, stupid jury or not. Unless they chose to fight Valve.
There is no way a court could support a claim you explicitly don't have, stupid jury or no stupid jury.
"Do you own the material you are claiming?" "No". "Get out of here".
|
Ok, story time:
In the state of MA, a registry certified copy of a deed is considered prima facie(self proving) evidence and can be entered into evidence without a witness. This is a basic rule. Like one of the most basic rules.
One day a District Court judge decided he didn’t want to evict someone from a property because he didn’t like bank. He ruled that the certified deed was not prima facie evidence and dismissed the action at trial. This was wrong and it was appealed, because the judge is an idiot.
Mind you, district court rulings have no impact on other district courts. They are not an appeal court. But this didn’t stop people from citing the ruling in every title case and eviction across the state. And other district court judge who didn’t like evictions or other things decided it was an issue worth litigating. No one was happy about this. Not landlords, not court clerks and not the appeals courts.
The appeals court heard arguments on the case and ruled “This is to fucking stupid for use to hear, my god, send this thing back to the trial court” and ordered the judge to accept the deed as evidence.
The case was sent back to the trial court and the judge ruled dismissed the case again, saying the certified deed was not prima facie evidence. Then the judges moved to have him retire because clearly that needed to happen. But that didn’t impact the ruling, which was appealed for a second time.
In the end, the right ruling was made. It only took 5 years. Hundreds of cases were fine during that time. But that one case was a nightmare and no one could have predicted it was going to be a nightmare. And no, this is not uncommon. That is just law. Cases like that eat up your life for the dumbest reasons possible.
So no, you do not want the DMCA streaming case to go to court for any reason.
|
So, in the end the right ruling was made.
I never said it was worth it or realistic. I said it would be interesting if someone cared enough to throw money away at it. Of course it would a waste of time and money. That's what throwing money away means.
It's also ESL who would have to pursue legal action after the counter claim is made, and they would never do it for obvious reasons. This would require someone actually going after ESL for filing stupid claims, outside the usual DMCA process.
|
My guess is that ESL told Facebook that they could guarantee an exclusive stream, and that their deal was predicated on that. So they probably lose boatloads of money if they don't take action, even if they know they're in the wrong. In the past the competing twitch streams with like YouTube word have had such a low amount of viewers that they would have been able to say that. The issue is that Facebook has a bunch of streaming issues (flash, really?) and some notable percentage are never going to watch on Facebook.
|
The key part of it was that it took 5 years and fucked up everyone's life during that time for literally no reason. That costs a lot of people a lot of money. A bad ruling could really do a lot of damage to video game streaming, even if it was corrected 5 years later.
|
Well, wouldn't that only be in that one state? Video games are large enough for someone to have a case in a different state. The thing is that this will eventually be in court. The only question is how long until it happens. I may not wish for it to happen, but I'm sure it will.
|
Listening to Nahaz is like sand paper for ears argh
|
On January 25 2018 02:52 PoulsenB wrote:
Listening to Nahaz is like sand paper for ears argh
also like sand paper for your brain tbh
slowly abrading what sanity remains
|
Any DMCA lawsuit will be heard in a Federal court or get there at some point. And as I said, the law is silent on this topic. People have just been making shit up as they go, both assuming they have the law on their side. Once a ruling happens, the law is no longer silent on the subject.
Edit: I am not an expert on this subject. I am only an expert is how really simple cases can get fucked up beyond all reason. Lawsuits and the law are not designed to prove which side is right. They will not affirm your point of view on anything. They will do the opposite.
|
|
|
On January 25 2018 03:02 Artisreal wrote:
Let's go liquid!
liquid don't play for another 17 hours m8
|
True that but I'm watching game 2 Vs Navi right now. So for me they play and it was supposed to draw attention away from lawyering
|
Sorry, people in this thread talkign about law is like met talking about coding or cyber security. At some point it triggers my "someone was wrong on the internet" reflex.
|
I think I live in a better state than P6, because I'm pretty good at ignoring "someone was wrong on the internet" or "someone disagrees with me on the internet."
Although I'm sure that's obvious by his use of the politics thread, and my lack thereof.
|
Hey man all good, its kinda nice to have a pocket lawyer-adjacent around.
I'm glad our community generally rejects facebook/ESL's grab for a slice of esports pie. Twitch ain't perfect, but they're a comfy level of supportive of their partners and not extremely defensive of their service/product. I'd rather they didn't get bullied out by a force with more money.
More importantly can we get a goody update? You good fam?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
